'::!n;;n> 


THE  LIBRARY 
OF 

THE  UNIVERSITY 

OF  CALIFORNIA 

LOS  ANGELES 

GIFT  OF 

Demetrios  Theodorides 


THE    PAPACY; 


ITS  HBTOKIC  ORIGIN  AND  PRIMITIVE  RELATIONS 


WITH    THE 


eastee:^  chueches. 


BY    THE 


ABBE    GUETTEE,  D.D., 

Author  op  "  A  History  of  the  Gallican  Church,"  btc,  bto.,  ira 


TRANSLATED  FROM   THE  FRENCH,   AND   PREFACED   BY   AN   ORIGINAL 
BIOGRAPHICAL  NOTICE  OF  THE  AUTHOR. 


■^'Iin    AN    INTRODUCTION    BY 

A..     CLE~VEi:.^IsrD      COXE, 

BISHOP      OF     WESTERN      NEW-YOEK. 


<^. 


PUBLISHED     BY 

MINOS    PUBLISHING    CO. 

NEW     YORK.     N.   Y. 


Printed  in  U.S.A. 

By 

Cosmos  Greek-American  Printing  Co. 

205  West  25th  Street,  New  York  1,  N.  Y. 


3X 
}€cS' 


THIS      EDITION      18      PUBLISHED 
IN  GRATEFUL   RECOGNITION    OF   THE   HAND   OF  GOD 

rN  THB 
EVBNTS  OF  THIS  MEMORABLE  TEAR, 

A.D.     M  D  C  C  C  L.  X  VI, 

LAU3  DEO.    AMEN. 


829484 


EDITOE'S    PEEFAOE. 


-♦-♦- 


HE  author  of  this  work  is  not  a  Protestant. 
He  is  a  French  divine  reared  in  the  commun- 
ion of  Rome,  and  devoted  to  her  cause  in  pur- 
pose of  heart  and  life ;  but  his  great  learning  having  led 
him  to  conclusions  contrary  to  those  of  the  Jesuits,  he 
is  "  under  the  ban."  Proscribed  by  the  Papacy  for  the 
fidelity  with  which  he  has  pursued  and  illustrated  the 
study  of  Church  History,  he  accepts  the  logical  conse- 
quences of  his  position,  and  finds  himself  a  true  Catholic 
at  last,  receiving  the  communion  in  both  kinds  at  the 
hands  of  the  Greeks,  in  the  Church  of  the  Russian  Em- 
bassy in  Paris.  The  interesting  biographical  notice 
which  is  prefixed  to  his  work  explains  his  personal  his- 
tory, and  gives  assurance  of  his  ability  to  treat  the  sub- 
ject of  the  Papacy  with  the  most  intimate  knowledge 
of  its  practical  character.  He  writes  with  science  and 
precision,  and  with  the  pen  of  a  man  of  genius.  Should 
he  continue  his  career  as  it  has  been  begun,  he  is  des- 


VI  EDITORS  PREFACE. 

tined  to  be  a  man  of  the  age,  and  the  precursor  of 
events  the  most  interesting  and  important  to  religion 
and  to  civilization. 

There  is  no  dignity  nor  payment  which  would  not 
have  been  accorded  to  him,  in  the  Romish  Communion, 
had  he  written  his  History  of  the  Church  of  France  in 
the  interests  of  the  party  called  Ultramontane,  that  is, 
the  Jesuit  party.  Like  Fleury,  he  preferred  to  tell  the 
facts  as  he  discovered  them  to  be,  and  for  this,  of  course 
he  has  been  persecuted.  The  censures  of  the  Court  of 
Rome  led  him  to  review  his  work  with  the  earnest  de- 
sire to  amend  it ;  but  this  reviewal,  by  his  very  effort  to 
make  it  thorough,  led  him  to  conclusions  which  he  had 
not  anticipated.  In  the  work  herewith  presented,  we 
have  the  results.  It  is  written  in  a  style  more  attract- 
ive than  the  similar  work  of  Barrow  on  the  Supremacy ^ 
and  on  some  interesting  questions  it  throws  new  light ; 
■while  its  originality,  analytical  power  and  illustrative 
force  are  everywhere  conspicuous. 

The  reader  must  understand  that  the  writer  uses  the 
word  Catholic  accurately  and  not  in  the  vulgar  sense. 
He  employs  it  as  it  is  understood  in  the  Creeds,  and  as 
it  is  used  by  all  scholars  and  theologians  who  write 
correctly.  Thus,  "  the  Catholic  Church  "  is  the  Historic 
Church  of  Christ,  presei-ving  the  orthodoxy  of  the  Four 
Great  Councils,  and  united  in  the  Apostolic  Episcopate. 
The  Oriental  Church  is  the  original  stock  of  this  great 


editor's  preface.  vii 

Tree;  and  the  Latin  or  Roman  Churches  are  but  a 
branch  of  it.  The  Church  of  Rome  was  itself  a  Greek 
Church  for  the  first  three  centuries  of  its  existence,* 

The  Abbe  has  fixed  on  Hadrian  I.  as  the  first  Pope ; 
the  editor  has  always  preferred,  for  several  reasons,  to 
name  Nicholas  I.  as  the  real  founder  of  the  Papacy; 
but,  as  it  was  a  slowly  developed  institution,  and  may 
be  dated,  in  its  first  stages,  from  the  claim  of  a  Univer- 
sal Episcopate  by  Boniface  III.,  it  is  always  important 
to   define  what  is  meant  by  the  term,  when  we  pro- 
nounce any  early  bishop  of  Rome  "  a  pope."    The  title- 
Papa  was  common  to  all  bishops,  Greek  and   Latin, 
from  the  earliest  times ;  but,  the  developed  Papacy,  as 
we  now  understand  it,  was  not  visible  till  the  era  of 
Charlemagne,  under  whose  successors  it  was  settled  in 
"Western  Europe  as  the  base  of  the  Feudal  system. 

Every  traveler  and  every  man  who  reads,  will  find 
the  historical  facts  with  which  this  work  will  render  him 
familiar  of  the  very  greatest  utility.  For  want  of  this 
knowledge,  the  present  aspect  of  Europe,  and  all  the 
questions  which  are  called  "Eastern,"  are  misappre- 
hended grossly,  and  men,  otherwise  intelligent,  add 
daily  to  popular  ignorance  by  attempting  to  explain 
them.  In  America,  the  importance  of  understanding 
such  matters  is  becoming  deeply  felt ;  and  it  is  not  too 
much  to  say  that  the  Abbe  Guett^e  will  be  found  by 

*  See  Mllman'B  Latin  Christianity. 


viii  editor's  preface. 

the  reader  to  be  the  clearest  writer  now  living  on  all 
matters  connected  with  the  Papacy. 

His  History  of  the  Church  of  France  is  volumin- 
ous and  elaborate;  his  Avork  on  the  Jesuits,  and  his 
confutation  of  M.  Renan,  deserve  to  be  universally 
known.  Should  this  translation  meet  with  the  favor  it 
merits,  it  is  to  be  hoped  that  the  translator  will  continue 
these  labors,  and  enrich  the  English-sj^eaking  world  with 
the  entire  series  of  the  author's  works. 

Buffalo,  May,  1866.  A.  C.  C. 


BIOGRAPHICAL  NOTICE  OF  THE  AUTHOR. 


-ft~^»- 


HE  nature  of  the  questions  cUscussed  in  tlie 
l"ollowing  work  would  ordinarily  lift  them 
above  all  personal  considerations  and  requii'e 
that  the  argument  be  left  to  take  care  of  it- 
self in  the  honest  vindication  of  Catholic  truth.  Tl^ere 
attaches  to  the  present  treatise,  however,  an  interest  quite 
separated  from  its  merits  as  an  argument,  in  its  identifica- 
tion with  the  history  of  a  man  of  whose  remarkal)le  ca- 
reer and  labors  it  is  one  of  the  most  valuable  fruits.  It 
is  believed,  therefore,  thaj,  it  can  scarcely  fail  to  derive 
additional  force  from  the  account  which  it  is  projjcr 
here  to  cive  of  the  author. 

Rene-Fran9ois  Guettee  was  born  at  Blois,  on  the 
banks  of  the  Loire,  in  the  Department  of  the  Loire  ei 
Cher,  on  the  first  of  December,  1816,  of  worthy  parent- 
age, but  Avith  no  other  inheritance  than  a  good  name 
and  fair  opportunities  for  education.  Self-devoted  from 
the  beginning  to  the  Church,  his  studies  were  pursued 
regularly  and  entirely  in  his  native  city.  From  a 
very  early  age  his  mind  seems  to  have  revolted  against 
the  wearisome  routine  that  ruled  the  system  of  instruc- 
tion, under  which  the  seminarist  becomes  a  mere  recep- 
tacle in  quantity  and  quality  of  the  knowledge  judged 
by  the  Church  of  Home  to  be  the  needful  preparation 
for  the  instruments  of  her  despotic  I'ule.  Guettee, 
without  comprehending  then  the  evil  results  of  such 
a  system,  felt  only  its  restraints  and  insufficiency.  His 
mind,  in  its  ardent  desire  for  knowledge  and  its  rapid 
acquisition,  worked  out  of  the  prescribed  limits  with 
an  instinctive  appropriation  of  the  whole  domain  of 
truth,  and  read  and  studied  in  secret.     He  consecrated 


X  BIOGRAPHICAL  NOTICE  OF   THE  AUTHOR. 

to  Study  the  time  devoted  by  others  to  amusement,  and 
thus  stored  his  mind  with  knowledge  both  varied  and 
accurate.  But  such  predilections,  never  viewed  with 
favor  by  the  Church  of  liome,  disquieted  Guettee's 
professors,  and  marked  him  as  an  independent  young 
man,  a  character  always  regarded  with  jealousy  and 
suspicion.  All  possible  obstacles  were  accordingly 
thrown  in  his  way,  and  had  not  his  scrupulous  regular- 
ity of  conduct  and  unquestionable  piety  counterbal- 
anced these  unfavorable  impressions,  he  might  have 
found  difficulty  in  obtaining  orders. 

At  .the  age  of  twenty-one  M.  Guettee  was  admitted 
to  the  sub-diaconate ;  at  twenty-two  he  was  made  deacon, 
and  at  twenty-three  years  he  was  advanced  to  the  priest- 
hood, receiving  his  ordination  on  the  twenty-first  day  of 
December,  1839,  at  the  hands  of  Mgr.  de  Sausin,  Bishop 
of  Blois.  He  began  at  once  the  faithful  exercise  of  his 
ministry,  first  as  vicar,  then  as  cure.  Mgr.  de  Sausin 
was  succeeded  in  the  see  of  Blois  by  Mgr.  Fabre  des 
Essarts,  a  man  of  liberal  mind  and  of  strong  Galilean 
predilections.  He  soon  perceived  in  the  young  cur4 
qualities  that  inspired  him  with  wami  interest  in  his 
welfare.  M,  Guettee's  studies,  directed  by  a  mind  un- 
shackled by  prejudice,  spurred  by  an  ardent  love  of 
truth  and  insatiable  thirst  for  knowledge,  had  led  him, 
soon  before  his  ordination  to  the  priesthood,  to  con- 
ceive the  idea  of  writing  a  History  of  the  CJnirch  of 
France.  To  this  work  he  gave  himself  with  character- 
istic ardor  immediately  after  his  ordination.  Having 
been  appointed  in  1841  to  the  cure  of  a  small  parish 
distant  about  twelve  miles  from  Blois,  where  the  duties 
left  him  the  larger  portion  of  his  time  for  study,  he 
frequently  rose  at  daybreak,  and  walked  to  the  city  for 
the  purpose  of  studying  in  the  public  library,  which  is 
very  rich  in  religious  literature,  and  where  he  found  all 
the  great  historical  collections  and  monuments  of  learn- 
ing in  France.  After  devoting  six  hours  to  close 
study,  he  returned  on  foot  to  the  solitude  of  his  own 
chamber,  where  a  large  part  of  the  night  was  con- 
sumed in  work  upon  the  materials  he  had  gathered. 
Absorbed  thus  between  the  cares  of  his  ministry  and 
his  literary  labors,  he  at  length  attracted  the  notice  of 
his  bishop,  who  remarked  that  he  never  presented  him- 


BIOGRAPHICAL  NOTICE  OF  TDE  AUTHOR.  XI 

self  at  the  episcopal  palace,  although  coming  frequently 
to  the  episcopal  city.  He  accordingly  sent  to  him  a 
request  to  know  the  subject  of  his  laborious  study  at 
the  library ;  and  having  learned  the  truth,  asked  to  see 
the  manuscript  of  the  first  volume,  then  nearly  com- 
pleted. This  he  caused  to  be  carefully  examined  by 
his  Vicar-General,  M.  Guillois,  the  most  learned  man  in 
the  diocese,  whose  report  was  of  the  most  flattering 
character.  Mgr,  des  Essarts  thereupon  resolved  to  en- 
courage the  young  writer  and  give  him  every  faciUty 
for  his  work.  M.  Guettee  was  accordingly  transferred 
to  another  parish  very  near  the  episcopal  city,  and 
where  the  charge  of  the  ministry  upon  his  time  was 
equally  light.  The  episcopal  library  was  placed  at  his 
service  and  the  emoluments  of  his  post  enabled  him  to 
go  from  time  to  time  to  Paris  for  such  researches  in  the 
great  libraries  as  became  necessary. 

Thus  M.  Guettee  passed  several  years  in  the  success- 
ful prosecution  of  his  great  work.  In  1847  Mgr.  Fabre 
des  Essarts  proposed  to  his  own  publisher  to  Ijegin  the 
publication  of  the  History  of  the  Church  of  France. 
No  sooner  had  the  first  volume  appeared  than  the 
author  received  from  a  large  number  of  the  French 
bishops  letters  of  the  warmest  commendation;  while 
on  the  other  hand  there  was  formed  against  him  in 
his  own  diocese  a  hostile  party,  composed  of  priests 
immediately  surrounding  the  bishop,  who  were  rendered 
jealous  by  the  marks  of  episcopal  favor  lavished  upon 
the  new  writer,  and  of  the  directors  of  the  seminaries, 
who  could  not  forgive  one  who  had  shown  so  little  re- 
verence for  their  narrow  prescriptions,  and  Avho  owed 
so  little  to  them.  The  bitterness  of  this  party  could 
only  acquire  intensity  in  the  steady  progress  of  our  au- 
thor in  the  path  of  distinction.  In  1849  M.  Guettee, 
Avith  the  approbation  of  the  Bishop,  resigned  his  cure, 
and  came  to  Blois  to  accept  the  editorial  charge  of  a 
political  journal  which  had  been  offered  to  him  by  the 
authorities  of  the  department.  After  the  public  excite- 
ment caused  by  the  proclamation  of  the  Re])ublio  in 
1848  had  somewhat  subsided,  the  sincere  democrats  of 
tlie  country  who  did  not  sever  the  cause  of  order  from 
that  of  liberty,  felt  the  necessity  of  creating  such  organs 
of  a  true  democracy  as  should  enlighten  the  people  upon 


Xll  BIOGRAPHICAL  NOTICE  OF  THE  AUTHOR. 

their  duties  as  well  as  upon  the  question  of  their  rights. 
With  this  aim  was  founded  Le  Repxihlicain  de  Loire  et 
Cher,  and  some  surprise  was  caused  at  seeing  the  edit- 
orship of  the  journal  confided  to  a  priest  by  democrats, 
who  had  until  then  passed  for  enemies  of  the  clergy  and 
of  tlie  Church.  The  confidence  of  his  friends  was  fully 
justified  in  the  influence  which  M.  Guettee  obtained 
for  this  journal  by  his  earnest  defense  of  the  principles 
to  which  it  was  devoted,  founding  and  strengthening 
them  upon  the  authority  of  the  Gospel,  and  showing 
them  to  be  in  harmony  with  the  principles  of  revealed 
religion. 

By  this  service  he  attached  more  firmly  to  him  the 
regard  of  the  Bishop  of  Blois,  who  then  conceived  the 
design  of  drawing  the  Abbe  into  closer  relations  with 
himself  by  giving  him  a  residence  in  the  episcopal  pal- 
ace ;  but  before  this  plan  could  be  executed  the  Bishop 
Avas  prostrated  by  the  disease  that  was  destined  to  re- 
move him  from  life  in  the  following  year.  M.  I'Abbe 
Garapin,  a  vicar-general,  an  intelligent  and  learned  man 
in  the  episcopal  administration  of  Blois,  who,  like  the 
Bishop,  felt  a  strong  regard  for  M.  Guettee,  informed 
him  secretly  of  the  Bishop's  kind  intentions,  but  coun- 
selled him  to  decline  them  and  thereby  escape  the  ma- 
chinations of  his  enemies  in  th6  administration,  who 
would  be  certain,  as  soon  as  the  Bishop's  approaching 
death  should  put  the  power  into  their  hands,  to  signal- 
ize it  by  driving  him  from  the  palace.  M.  Guettee  follow- 
ed this  friendlv  advice,  and  having  resigned  the  charge  of 
the  journal  he  had  edited  for  eighteen  months,  because 
by  this  change  of  regime  he  could  no  longer  edit  it 
with  independence,  and  seeing  his  friend  the  Bishop  at 
the  point  of  death,  he  resolved  to  quit  the  diocese  of  Blois, 
and  demand  permission  to  establisli  himself  at  Paris, 
where  he  might  enjoy  more  facilities  for  the  completion 
of  his  History  of  the  Church  of  France.  Knowing  tliat 
the  first  vicar-general  M'ould  very  joyfully  seize  the  op- 
])ortunity  of  ridding  the  diocese  of  one  for  whom  he 
cherished  so  cordial  a  dislike,  he  asked  and  readily  ob- 
tained a  full  letter  of  credit  certifying  to  his  learning 
and  piety. 

Thus  furnished,  M.  Guettee  arrived  in  Paris,  and  made 
no   other  re(}uest  of  the  archiepiscopal  administration 


BIOGRAPHICAL  NOTICE  OF  THE  AUTHOR.         xiii 

there  than  to  he  authorized  to  say  mass  within  the  dio- 
cese, attacliinor  himself  at  the  same  time  to  an  ecclesi- 
astical college  as  professor,  Mgr.  Sihour,  then  Archbish- 
op of  Paris,  having  been  apprised  of  the  residence  of 
JVI.  Guettee  in  the  cajntal,  invited  him  to  present  himself 
at  the  episcopal  palace,  and  offered  him  a  chaplaincy 
with  such  warmth  of  manner  that  he  did  not  feel  at  lib- 
erty to  refuse  so  evident  a  desire  to  serve  him.  In  1851 
six  volumes  of  the  History  of  the  Church  of  France 
had  already  been  published,  and  the  author  had  received 
for  it  the  approbation  of  more  than  forty  of  the  French 
bishops.  This  success  caused  great  uneasiness  to  the 
ultramontane  party.  M.  Guettee,  it  appeared,  while  so 
treating  his  great  subject  as  to  win  the  high  suffrages 
just  referred  to,  manifested  so  sincere  a  love  of  truth 
that  his  work  became  dangerous  to  a  party  with  whom 
this  was  no  recommendation.  The  design  was  immedi- 
ately formed  of  gaining  over  the  author,  and  accordingly 
Mgr.  Gousset,  Archbishop  of  Rheims,  who  was  at  the 
head  of  the  ultramontane  party,  made  overtures  to  him, 
intimating  that  honors  and  ecclesiastical  preferment 
would  not  be  tardy  in  rewarding  his  unreserved  devo- 
tion to  the  ultramontane  doctrines.  But  this  dignitary 
quickly  saw  that  he  had  to  deal  with  one  who  could  not 
be  brought  to  traffic  with  his  convictions,  nor  be  intimi- 
dated by  threats.  From  this  moment  began  that  war 
against  him  which  issued  in  his  present  entire  withdrawal 
from  communion  with  the  Church  of  Rome  as  a  branch  of 
the  Catholic  Church  schismatical  in  position  and  corrupt- 
ed in  doctrine.  This  alienation,  however,  was  gradual,  the 
fruit  of  his  growing  convictions  and  deeper  insight  into 
the  principles  of  the  complicated  and  powerful  system 
with  which  now  he  had  to  grap])le.  The  struggle  called 
for  all  the  resources  of  his  thoroughly  balanced  and 
severely  disciplined  mind,  as  well  as  of  his  extensive 
learning.  He  saw  at  first  fiir  less  clearly  than  did  the 
ultramontane  ])arty,  the  steady  divergence  of  his  views 
from  the  Papal  doctrine.  The  Galilean  tone  that  per- 
vaded more  and  more  his  Ilistor;/  of  the  Church  of 
France  proceeded  not  from  a  deliberate  point  of  view 
from  which  he  wrote,  but  was  the  scrupulous  and  truth- 
ful rendering  of  history  by  his  honest  mind,  the  im- 
partial and  logical  use  of  the  materials  out  of  which 


Xiv        BIOGRAPHICAL  NOTICE  OP  THE  AUTHOR. 

Ms  history  was  to  be  raade.  To  such  a  mind,  there- 
fore, the  forced  revelation  of  this  divergence  from  the 
doctrines  of  a  party  who  for  that  reason  solely  demand- 
ed his  retractation  and  unquestioning  submission,  could 
only  increase  the  dissidence,  and  so  it  proved.  The 
first  seven  volumes  of  the  History,  approved  by  more 
than  forty  bishops,  and  six  of  them  published  under  the 
direction  and  with  the  sanction  of  the  Bishop  of  Blois, 
were  placed  in  the  Index  of  books  prohibited  by  the 
court  of  Rome.  Mgr.  Sibour  gave  his  approbation  to 
the  resistance  made  at  once  by  M.-  Guettee  to  this  de- 
cree. The  author  was  immediately  attacked  with  great 
violence  by  the  Univers  and  other  Jesuit  journals, 
and  defended  himself  with  great  spirit  and  ability,  all 
his  replies  being  first  submitted  to  Mgr.  Sibour  and 
approved  by  him.  During  this  struggle  the  eighth 
and  ninth  volumes  of  the  History  appeared.  Mgr. 
Sibour  charged  one  of  his  vicars-general,  M.  I'Abbe 
Lequeux,  with  the  mission  of  submitting  them  to  the 
"  Congregation  of  the  Index,"  Avith  the  request  that  its 
objections  might  be  made  known  to  the  author  before 
they  were  censured.  The  author  had  furnished  M. 
Lequeux  with  letters  bearing  a  similar  petition.  This 
ecclesiastic  had  himself  suffered  by  the  censure  of  the 
Congregation,  passed  upon  his  Mamial  of  Canon  JLatCy 
a  classic  of  many  years'  standing  in  the  seminaries. 
He  had  submitted,  and  was  on  his  way  to  Rome  for  the 
purpose  of  learning  the  objections  of  the  Congregation 
and  correcting  his  work.  But  he  obtained  no  satis- 
faction either  for  himself  or  for  M.  Guettee,  whose  two 
new  volumes  were  placed  arbitrarily  in  the  Index 
without  a  word  of  explanation  as  to  the  grounds  of 
censure.  Thus  M.  Guettee  was  baffled  in  his  many 
respectful  and  patient  endeavors  to  obtain  the  desired 
communication  with  the  Congregation  at  Rome.  He 
resolved,  therefore,  to  pursue  his  work  without  concern- 
ing himself  about  censures  so  tyrannical  and  unreason- 
able. But  matters  were  about  to  change  their  aspect 
at  the  archiepiscopal  palace.  In  the  course  of  the  year 
1854,  the  bishops  were  called  to  Rome  to  be  present  at 
the  promulgation  of  the  new  dogma  of  the  Immaculate 
Concejition.  Mgr.  Sibour  was  not  invited.  He  had 
addi-essed  to  Rome  a  paper  in  which  he  proved  that 


BIOGRAPHICAL  NOTICE  OF   THE  AUTHOR.  XV 

this  dogma,  or  belief,  was  not  definable,  because  it 
was  not  taught  either  in  Holy  Scripture,  or  by  Catho- 
lic tradition.  To  punish  him  for  this  act  he  was  not 
included  among  the  bishops  invited.  Deeply  mortified 
at  this  omission,  he  wrote  to  the  Pope  touching  it,  and 
in  a  manner  so  submissive  that  he  was  at  once  reward- 
ed with  an  invitation  couched  in  the  most  gracious 
terms.  The  character  of  Mgr.  Sibour  was  well  under- 
stood at  Rome  as  that  of  a  weak  and  ambitious  man, 
full  of  vanity  and  without  fixed  convictions,  who  could 
be  won  by  flatteries  and  bought  with  promises.  He 
was,  therefore,  received  Avith  studied  ])oliteness  and 
lodged  in  the  Vatican.  His  namesake  and  friend,  M. 
Sibour,  cure  of  the  church  of  St.  Thomas  Aquinas  in 
Paris,  was  made  Bishop  of  Tripoli  in  partibus,  and  his 
friend,  M.  L'Abbe  Darboy,  the  present  Archbishop  of 
Paris,  was  appointed  Prothonotaire  Apostoliqtie.  For 
himself  he  received  the  promise  of  a  cardinal's  hat.  In 
return  for  these  kindnesses  he  was  constrained  to  sac- 
rifice his  Galilean  friends  among  the  clergy  of  Paris, 
and  the  promise  made  to  that  eflect  Avas  well  kept. 
M.  L'Abbe  Lequeux,  his  vicar-general,  found  himself 
dismissed  to  his  old  place  among  the  Canons  of  Notre 
Dame ;  M.  L'Abbe  Laborde  was  persecuted  and  finally 
found  no  better  refuge  than  the  hospital,  Avhere  he 
ijoon  after  died ;  M.  I'Abbe  Prompsault,  who  had  been 
for  nearly  thirty  years  chaplain  of  the  Hospice  of  les 
Quinze  Vinc/t,  was  deprived  of  his  position,  left  without 
resources,  and  subsequently  died  in  the  hospital  not  long 
after.  Finally,  forgetful  or  regardless  of  all  the  en- 
couracrement  he  had  o-iven  to  M.  I'Abbe  Guettde  in  his 
resistance  to  the  action  of  the  Congregation  of  the  Index, 
and  of  his  repeated  proofs  of  regard  and  confidence,  he 
withdrew  his  support,  deprived  him  of  his  place,  and 
reduced  him,  like  the  others,  to  poverty.  Here,  however, 
he  found  a  less  submissive  sj^irit.  Roused  by  the  in- 
justice and  tyranny  of  this  act,  M.  Guettee  jnnnted  a 
letter  to  IMgr.  Sibour  which  proved  a  home-thrust  to 
this  vacillating  prelate.  It  recounted  all  the  facts  of 
his  past  relations  with  the  Archbisliop,  his  patient  en- 
deavors to  be  at  peace  with  the  court  of  Rome,  his  of- 
fers of  ever.y  reasonable  submission,  and  earnest  ap- 
plication directly  to  the  Congregation  of  the  Index,  and 


XVI         BIOGRAPHICAL  NOTICE  OF  THE  AUTHOR, 

afterward  to  Mgr,  Sibour  himself,  to  have  his  obnoxious 
work  examined  by  a  commission ;  how  this  was  refused 
when  proceeding  from  himself  as  an  overture  of  con- 
ciliation, but  was  subsequently  suggested  by  the  Arch- 
bisliop  himself,  in  the  form  of  a  menace,  to  induce  the 
Abbe  Guettee  to  withdraw  from  Paris  voluntarily,  and 
save  himself  from  the  threatened  censure  and  disability ; 
that  he  declined  the  latter  course  and  opened  himself 
and  his  work  with  every  facility  to  the  scrutiny  of  his 
judges.  He  set  forth  the  action  of  the  Council  of  Ro- 
chelle  in  1853 — the  same  which  proposed  to  censure 
Bossuet — which  attacked  the  eighth  volume  of  the  Hist- 
ory of  the  (Jhiireh  of  France,  and  did  not  spare  even 
the  Abbe's  personal  character ;  that  when  he  had  pre- 
pared his  defense  and  asked  permission  of  the  Archbish- 
op to  publish  it,  lest  it  should  be  seized  as  the  pretext 
for  depriving  him  of  his  functions,  he  was  answered  that 
before  such  permission  could  be  accorded  he  must  re- 
sign those  functions  in  the  diocese  of  Paris ;  that  he  re- 
fused to  do  this,  and  that  by  agreement  certain  copies 
of  his  defense  were  deposited  with  the  Archbishop,  and 
an  agreement  made  that  it  should  not  be  published ;  that 
though  this  defense  was  not  made  the  occasion  of  Ins  pre- 
meditated removal,  the  pretext  for  a  measure  so  deter- 
mined upon  was  soon  after  made  out  of  a  petty  difference 
of  a  personal  kind  beween  himself  ami  a  confrere,  with- 
out any  regard  to  the  importance  or  the  justice  of  the 
case ;  that  Mgr.  Sibour  finally  deprived  him  of  the  poor 
office  of  hospital  chn})lain,  with  the  evident  design  of 
witlidrawing  from  him  such  means  of  subsistence  as 
alone  prevented  his  quitting  Paris. 

This  letter,  addressed  to  Mgr.  Sibour,  protesting 
against  his  action  and  fully  exposing  the  motives  that 
could  alone  have  operated  to  these  ])ersecutions,  was 
printed  and  a  copy  sent  to  the  Archbishop  before  it 
was  published.  Under  the  impression,  however,  that  it 
had  been  published,  the  Archbishop  immediately  replied 
by  depriving  the  Abbe  of  the  permission  to  say  mass  in 
Paris,  thus  completing  the  disability  cast  upon  him. 
But  upon  the  Abbe's  informing  him  that  the  letter  had 
not  been  published,  that  it  was  designed  as  a  defense 
of  himself,  not  as  an  attack  upon  the  administration  of 
the  diocese,  and  offering  to  deposit  the  edition  of  the 


BIOGRAPHICAL  NOTICE  OF  THE  AUTHOR.       XVU 

letter  at  tlie  arcliiepiscopal  palace,  to  avoid  the  evils  of 
publicity,  Mgr.  Sibour  next  clay  sent  a  very  kind  note 
to  M.  Guettee,  expressing  himself  touched  by  the  terms 
of  his  response,  restoring  to  him  the  authority  to  cele- 
brate mass,  accepting  the  deposit  of  the  copies  of  his 
printed  letter,  and  desiring  to  see  him  to  give  him  some 
further  proof  of  liis  satisfaction.  At  a  personal  inter- 
view the  same  evening,  Mgr.  Sibour  promised  him  short- 
ly new  ecclesiastical  functions. 

-It  would  seem,  however,  that  the  Archbishop's  eyes 
were  beginning  to  be  opened  toward  Rome.  His  sub- 
mission and  absolute  conversion  had  so  satisfied  that 
court  that  it  was  in  no  haste  to  confer  the  promised 
cardinal's  hat;  and  Mgr.  Sibour  feeling  that  he  had 
been  amused  with  words,  repented  of  his  acts  of  injus- 
tice and  was  meditating  some  reparation,  of  which  his 
gentler  disposition  toward  M.  Guettee  was  a  sign,  Avhen 
these  better  intentions  were  arrested  by  the  tragic  death 
lie  so  suddenly  met  at  the  hand  of  the  assassin  Verger, 
in  the  church  of  St.  Etienne  du  Mont. 

His  successor,  Cardinal  Morlot,  was  a  man  of  politi- 
cal ideas  and  aspirations,  astute  and  scheming,  who  never 
lost  sight  of  the  importance  or  neglected  the  means 
of  maintaining  the  best  relations  with  the  powerful. 
He  made  every  needful  concession  to  the  successive  gov- 
ernments in  France,  and  at  the  same  time  conciliated 
Rome,  feeding  its  insatiable  greed  of  riches  by  sending 
large  sums  of  money  for  its  necessities.  Such  a  man 
could  have  no  thoughts  to  bestow  upon  the  trivial  work 
of  repairing  the  wrongs  of  his  predecessor.  On  the 
contrary,  he  Avas  not  long  in  showing  himself  yet  more 
severe  against  M.  Guettee,  and  at  the  close  of  the  year 
1855  finally  refused  to  renew  his  permission  to  say  mass 
in  Paris.  From  this  moment  began  the  war  in  earnest 
which  ended  in  the  separation  of  our  author  from  the 
Church  of  Rome.  After  having  in  vain  endeavored  to 
procure  from  the  Archbishop  in  writing  the  refusal  to 
sanction  the  continuance  of  his  ministry  in  the  diocese 
of  Paris — a  refusal  that  was  prudently  communicated 
to  him  verbally  by  the  proper  official — he  published  his 
appeal  to  the  Pope  against  the  decision  as  a  gross  vio- 
lation of  canon  law,  and  another  to  the  government, 
as  an  abuse  of  authority  and  an  invasion  of  his  civil-eccles- 


XVIU      BIOGRAPHICAL  NOTICE  OF  THE  AUTHOR. 

iastical  rights.  These  appeals,  firm  in  their  language 
and  unanswerable  in  their  tacts  and  arguments,  were  not 
published  with  any  hope  of  answer  or  justice,  but  for 
the  purpose  of  exposing  clearly  the  outrageous  viola- 
tion by  his  adversary  of  the  ancient  liberties  of  the  Gal- 
ilean Church,  and  the  arbitrary  and  despotic  character  of 
the  whole  proceeding.  He  did  not  imagine  that  the 
Pope  would  ever  be  permitted  to  hear  of  his  wrongs, 
or  if  he  were,  that  he  would  listen  to  them  at  the  ex- 
pense of  his  own  friends  and  of  the  principles  upon 
which  the  power  of  the  Papacy  is  built.  Nor  was 
it  to  be  expected  that  the  State  would  embroil  itself 
with  an  individual  conflict  with  the  Church  upon  a 
question  of  canon  law.  Thus  M.  I'Abbe  Guettee,  inno- 
cent of  the  smallest  offense  against  good  morals,  and 
with  a  character  free  from  all  taint,  without  any  eccles- 
iastical censure  resting  upon  him,  or  any  proceedings 
directed  against  him,  was  deprived  of  the  exercise  of 
his  ministry,  with  the  evident  purpose  of  driving  him 
from  Paris,  where  his  enlightened  views  caused  too 
much  inconvenience  to^the  ultramontane  party. 

It  is  unnecessary  to  say  that  the  scheme  failed,  or  to 
follow  the  controversy  that  ensued  upon  this  open  rup- 
ture. It  had  the  natural  result  of  disclosing  more  clear- 
ly than  ever  to  M.  Guettee  the  principles  of  the  Church 
of  Rome  and  the  despotic  usurpation  of  the  Papacy. 
The  energy  and  industry  with  Avhich  he  answered  the 
attacks  upon  him  developed  his  views,  defined  his  ob- 
jections and  thoroughly  awakened  the  latent  protest 
of  his  enlightened  conscience  against  the  pretensions 
of  Rome,  He  became  finally  the  watchful  and  open 
antagonist  of  the  Papacy,  and  shortly  after  foimd  him- 
self the  editor  of  the  Review  called  V  Observateur  Cathol- 
ique^  which  had,  and  still  has,  for  its  object  the  resist- 
ance of  Papal  usurpations  and  corruptions  in  the  Church 
by  the  principles  of  primitive  truth  and  a  pure  Catho- 
licity. He  has  published  successively  a  History  of  the 
Jesuits,  in  three  volumes ;  the  Memoirs  et  Journal  de 
VAbhe  Le  Dieu  sur  la  Vie  et  les  Outrages  de  Bossuet, 
in  four  volumes ;  also  a  refutation  of  Renan's  Vie  de 
Jesus.  His  latest  and  most  important  work  is  the  Pa- 
paute  Schismatique,  now  presented  in  English.  Six 
years  ago  he   founded,  in   conjunction  with  the  Rev. 


BIOGRAPHICAL  NOTICE  OF  THE  AUTHOR.         XIX 

Archpriest  Wassilieff,  titular  head  of  the  Russo-Greek 
Church  in  France,  and  especially  attached  to  the  Rus- 
sian Church  in  Paris,  V  Union  Chretienne,  a  weekly  pub- 
lication in  quarto  form,  having  for  its  specific  object  the 
diffusion  of  information  upon  the  principles  of  the  primi- 
tive Church  as  those  of  a  true  Catholicity,  upon  which 
the  non-Roman  branches  of  the  Church  should  be  recall- 
ed to  a  renewal  of  their  outward  unity,  and  thus  a  re- 
sistless influence  be  opposed  to  the  invasions  of  the 
Papal  principle  and  the  corruptions  it  has  introduced 
into  the  priuiitive  fliith.  It  is  natural  that  such  a  con- 
secration of  his  labor  and  Buch  associations,  should 
have  led  M.  Guettee  into  close  and  increasingly  devoted 
relations  with  the  Oriental  Church,  and  especially  with 
the  Orthodox  Church  of  Russia.  His  views  ceasing  to 
be  Roman  and  Papal  only  because  more  intensely 
Catholic,  he  sought  a  home  in  the  East,  where  the  Pa- 
pal power  could  never  seat  itself,  and  especially  in  the 
Orthodox  Russian  Church,  where  its  pretensions  are 
held  in  abhorrence.  All  that  is  venerable,  pure,  and 
Catholic  in  the  faith  and  form  of  the  Church  of  Christ, 
our  author  believes  he  has  found  in  the  Russo-Greek 
branch,  and  he  has  therefore  attached  himself  warmly 
to  it,  making  it  the  platform  for  his  earnest  and  pure- 
minded  labors  for  the  restoration  of  visible  unity.  He 
is  in  turn  held  in  high  esteem  by  the  authorities  and 
learned  men  of  the  Russian  Church,  and  has  recently 
received  from  it  the  high  and  rare  honor  of  a  doctorate 
in  theology.  His  labors  for  union  are  warmly  appre- 
ciated and  encouraged  there  as  they  are  everywhere 
by  all  who  understand  them.  M.  Guettee  is  no  enthu- 
siast; he  is  fully  aware  of  the  difficulties  and  magni- 
tude of  the  work  to  which  his  life  is  consecrated,  and 
looks  for  no  marked  progress  or  flattering  results  to 
show  themselves  in  his  lifetime,  but  is  content  to  sow 
wide  and  deep  the  seeds  of  truth,  leaving  them  to  germ- 
inate and  become  fruitful  in  God's  good  time.  He 
has  a  warm  and  intelligent  appreciation  of  our  Ameri- 
can branch  of  the  Church,  and  looks  to  its  activity 
in  the  great  endeavor  as  of  the  highest  importance,  be- 
lieving that  her  catholic  character  and  free  and  mobile 
structure  peculiaily  mark  her  as  a  powerful  instrument 
to  promote  the  interests  of  the  Catholic  faith.     M.  Guet- 


XX  BIOGRAPHICAL  NOTICE  OF  THE  AUTHOR. 

tee  lias  in  preparation  a  work  of  much  interest  and  im- 
portance, designed  to  bring  into  a  single  view  the  harm- 
onies and  diflerences  of  the  various  branches  of  the 
Catholic  Church.  It  forms  a  careful  survey  of  the 
ground,  and  is  likely  to  become  a  valuable  help  to  an 
enlightened  view  of  the  work  of  unity,  to  which  the 
providence  of  God  seems  to  be  directing  all  Christian 
minds.  This  new  production  of  M.  Guettee  will  be 
translated  without  delay,  and  published  simultaneously 
in  French,  Russian,  and  English. 


AUTHOE^S    IKTEODUCTIOK 


♦  ♦• 


HE  Pope  is  a  king,  and  pretends  to  be  sover- 
eign pontiff  of  the  Christian  Church. 

We  do  not  propose  to  occupy  ourselves  with 
his  royalty.  To  what  advantage  ?  It  will  soon  fall.  Ita 
ruin  is  decreed  by  Providence.  Foreign  bayonets  will 
no  more  save  it  than  the  sophisms  of  its  defenders.  If, 
as  is  affirmed,  these  are  necessary  to  uphold  the  sover- 
eign pontificate,  it  is  but  another  reason  for  desiring  its 
fall — because  this  pontificate  is  aii  usurpation.  This 
we  proceed  to  demonstrate  in  the  present  work.  To 
reach  this  end  we  shall  have  recourse  neither  to  ques- 
tionable arguments  nor  to  declamation.  Facts  drawn 
from  original  sources  are  summoned  as  witnesses.  We 
take  the  Roman  episcopate  at  the  origin  of  Christian- 
ity, follow  it  through  centuries,  and  are  able  to  prove 
incontestably,  that  during  eight  centuries  the  spiritual 
Papacy,  as  we  understand  it  at  the  present  day,  had  no 
existence ;  that  the  bishop  of  Rome  was  during  three  cen- 
turies only  a  bishop^  with  the  same  rank  as  the  others ; 
that  in  the  fourth  century  he  received  a  primacy  of 
honor  without  universal  jurisdiction ;  that  this  honor 
has  no  other  foundation  than  the  decrees  of  the  Church ; 
that  his  restricted  jurisdiction  over  certain  neighboring 


22  author's  introduction. 

churches  is  supported  only  upon  a  custom  legalized  by 
Councils. 

As  for  the  universal  sovereignty,  absolute,  of  divine 
right — in  other  words,  the  Papacy — facts  and  catholic 
testimony  of  the  first  eight  centuries  condemn  instead 
of  sustaining  it. 

History  reveals  to  us  the  Papacy,  after  several  fruit- 
less attempts,  taking  its  birth  from  circumstances  and 
establishing  itself  in  the  ninth  century,  with  its  double 
political  and  ecclesiastical  character.  Its  real  founder 
was  Adrian  L  Nicholas  I.  chiefly  contributed  to  its 
development ;  Gregory  VII.  raised  it  to  its  loftiest  pitch. 

Adrian  I.  was  in  fact  the  first  Pope.  They  who  be- 
fore this  occupied  the  see  of  Rome,  were  only  bishops, 
successors,  not  of  St.  Peter,  as  has  been  declared  and 
repeated  to  satiety,  but  of  Linus,  who  was  already  bish- 
op of  Rome  when  St.  Peter  arrived  in  that  city,  to  seal 
there  by  his  martyrdom  the  faith  he  had  preached. 
The  defenders  of  the  Papacy  commit,  therefore,  at  the 
outset,  one  of  the  grossest  historical  errors  in  carrying 
back  the  Papacy,  that  is,  the  Papal  sovereignty,  to  the 
origin  of  Christianity.  This  error  has  led  them  to  a  thou- 
sand others,  impelled,  as  they  have  been,  to  seek  proofs 
for  the  support  of  this  false  theory  in  the  history  of  the 
Church  and  in  the  writings  of  the  ancient  fathers. 
They  have  thus  wrested  facts  and  distorted  testimo- 
nies. They  have  even  dared  to  attack  Holy  Scripture, 
and  by  delusive  anti-catholic  interpretation,  made  it 
bear  false  witness  in  favor  of  their  system.  It  is  thus 
that  the  Church  of  Rome  was  the  first  to  give  example 
of  those  individual  interpretations  for  which  she  so  bit- 


author's  introduction.  23 

terly  reproaches  Protestantism.  She  was  the  first  to  aban- 
don the  Catholic  rule  of  the  interpretation  of  the  sacred 
books ;  she  has  put  aside  the  collective  interpretation  of 
which  the  fathers  of  the  Church  have  been  the  faithful 
echoes,  and  upon  her  own  authority  she  has  presumed 
to  discover  in  Scripture  that  which  the  Church  Catholic 
has  not  found  there.  She  has  come  thus  to  arrogate  for 
her  usurped  sovereignty  a  divine  foundation.  She  has 
drawn  from  this  principle  all  its  consequences ;  the  Pope 
has  become  the  vicar  of  Jesus  Christ,  the  necessary  cen- 
tre of  the  Church,  the  pivot  of  Christianity,  the  infallible 
organ  of  heaven.  These  Papal  eiTors  were  so  skillfully 
disseminated  in  the  western  countries  that  they  were 
there  gradually  adopted.  The  protests  which  they  drew 
forth  were  indeed  continued,  but  partaking  of  the  spirit 
of  the  age,  they  were  not  sufficiently  pointed ;  such  even 
as  were  raised  against  the  abuses  of  the  Papacy,  admit- 
ted as  beyond  question  a  divine  basis  for  that  institu- 
tion. 

At  the  present  day,  these  errors  have  penetrated  not 
only  among  the  clergy  and  religious  men ;  the  rational- 
ists—  anti-Christians  themselves  —  admit  the  idea  that 
the  Pope  is  the  sovereign  chief  of  the  Christian  Church, 
and  that  his  spiritual  prerogatives  are  derived  from 
Jesus  Christ.  Many  Protestants  themselves  do  not  con- 
ceive of  a  Catholic  Church  without  a  Pope,  and  see  this 
church  only  in  the  Roman  Church.* 

We  ourselves  have  been  misled  by  the  common  error, 

*  The  author  thus  touches  Uoo  of  the  p-eatest  advantages  which  modorn  writers, 
unfortunately,  concede  to  the  Papists :  1st.  That  of  identifying  historical  Christ- 
ianity with  the  Mediaeval  Roman  system ;  2d.  That  of  calling  the  Trentine  Church 
the  Catholic  Church. 


24  author's  introduction. 

taught  as  we  Lad  been  to  regard  it  as  a  revealed  and 
incontestable  verity. 

In  embarking  upon  the  extensive  researches  we  were 
obliged  to  make  for  the  preparation  of  the  History  of 
the  Church  of  France^  it  did  not  enter  our  thoughts 
to  examine  certain  questions,  which  only  in  an  indirect 
way  entered  into  our  subject  and  upon  which  we  had 
blindly  accej^ted  certain  opinions.  Hence  some  expres- 
sions too  favorable  to  the  Papacy,  and  some  errors 
of  detail  in  our  book.  We  seize  the  occasion  now 
offered  to  give  warning  of  them,  in  order  that  our 
readers  may  be  on  their  guard  against  these  errors, 
which,  however,  will  find  their  con'ection  in  the  present 
work. 

Rome  has  visited 'with  her  censure  the  History  of  the 
Church  of  France  because  it  was  not  sufficiently  favor- 
able to  her  pretensions.  We  ourselv'es  censure  it  be- 
cause too  tnany  concessions  are  there  made  to  Roman 
prejudices  which  had  been  imparted  to  us  as  truth,  and 
which  we  had  not  been  at  the  pains  thoroughly  to  ex- 
amine. Should  Providence  ever  put  it  into  our  power 
to  reprint  the  History  of  the  Church  of  France,  we 
shall  deem  it  an  obligation  of  conscience  to  make  the 
correction.  This  would  have  been  done  at  the  demand 
of  Rome,  had  Rome  condescended  to  convince  us  of 
error.  We  shall  do  it,  however,  at  the  requirement  of 
our  o^Nvn  conscience,  now  more  enlightened. 

No  man  is  infallible ;  hence,  inasmuch  as  a  man  dis- 
honors himself  by  changing  his  opinions  without  good 
reason  or  pretending  such  change  from  motives  of  in- 
terest, in  the  same  degree  does  he  honor  himself  when 


author's  introduction.  25 

acknowledging  and  retracting  errors  he  discovers  him- 
self to  have  committed. 

"We  are  therefore  disposed  to  great  tolerance  toward 
Roman  Catholics  who  believe  in  the  divine  origin  of 
the  Papal  prerogatives;  for  we  know  that  this  pre- 
judgment is  communicated  to  all  of  them  with  the  first 
elements  of  religious  instruction,  and  that  every  thing  in 
the  Roman  Church  tends  to  strengthen  it  in  their  souls. 
But  the  more  deeply  this  delusion  is  rooted  in  the  Ro- 
man Church,  and  generally  in  all  the  West,  the  more 
are  we  bound  to  combat  it  with  vigor. 

To  this  pursuit  have  we  for  several  years  persever- 
ingly  devoted  ourselves,  and,  thanks  to  God,  our  labors 
have  not  been  useless.  We  hope  the  new  work  we  now 
send  forth  will  also  bear  its  fruits,  and  will  come  to  the 
help  of  those  religious  men,  daily  increasing  in  number, 
who,  in  the  presence  of  the  abuses  and  excesses  of  every 
kind  committed  by  the>Papacy,  can  no  longer  be  blind- 
ed respecting  it  by  old  delusions. 

Accustomed  to  see  in  it  the  divine  centre  of  the 
Church,  they  can  no  longer  recognize  such  a  centre 
in  this  hotbed  of  innovations  and  of  sacrilegious  usurp- 
ations; they  ask,  therefore,  where  is  the  Church  of 
Jesus  Christ  ?  We  need  only  divest  the  Papacy  of  the 
glory  it  has  usui'ped,  that  the  Church  Catholic  may  at 
once  appear  in  her  majestic  perpetuity,  in  her  univer- 
sality.  The  Papacy  has  narrowed  it  to  the  point  of 
presuming  to  comprehend  the  whole  Church  in  itself. 
Tear  away  these  glittering  pretensions,  and  the  Christ- 
ian society  will  appear  marching  with  unbroken  prog- 
ress through  ages,  preserving  inviolate  the  deposit  of 


26  author's  introduction. 

revelation,  protesting  against  every  error,  whether  ema- 
nating from  Rome  or  elsewhere ;  accepting  as  her  rule 
only  the  catholic  rule  founded  upon  the  Word  of  God, 
of  which  the  Councils  and  the  Fathers  are  the  organs. 

In  this  holy  society  there  are  neither  Greeks  nor  Bar- 
barians, but  Christians  only,  who  can  say  with  St.  Pa- 
cian,  "  Christian  is  my  name ;  Catholic  my  surname," 
because  they  believe  without  exception  in  all  fullness 
(kot?'  oAov)  the  doctrine  taught  by  the  Master  and  pre- 
served intact  by  the  Church  in  all  ages  and  in  all  places. 
This  great  truth  is  concisely  expressed  by  the  well-known 
words  of  Vincent  of  Lerins : 

"  Quod  ubique,  quod  semper,  quod  »b  omnibus." 

The  Pope  would,  in  his  own  interest,  limit  the  Church 
to  such  as  acknowledge  his  sovereignty,  that  he  might 
then  absorb  them  and  say,  "  I  am  the  Church.''''  Let 
us  break  down  the  barriers  he  has  raised,  and  we  shall 
at  once  see  the  Church  in  all  her  beauty,  expanding  in 
freedom,  unshackled  by  territorial  boundaries,  owning 
as  its  members  all  particular  churches,  bound  together 
by  the  same  faith,  communing  with  one  another  through 
pastors  alike  apostolic,  made  one  in  Jesus  Christ,  the 
great  Pontiff,  the  sole  Head  of  the  Church,  and  in  the 
Holy  Spirit  its  guide. 

Who  has  broken  this  admirable  unity  of  the  first 
Christian  ages  ?     The  Pope. 

He  has  usurped  the  place  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  has 
said  to  all  churches,  "  It  is  in  me  and  by  me  you  shall 
be  united ;  the  ministry  of  your  pastors  shall  proceed 
from  me ;  from  me  are  you  to  receive  doctrine.     T  am 


author's  introduction.  27 

supreme  pastor.  It  is  my  right  to  govern  all.  I  am 
supreme  judge.  I  may  judge  all  and  be  myself  judged 
by  no  one  whomsoever.  I  am  the  echo  of  heaven,  the 
infallible  voice  of  God.* 

Shall  the  harmony  of  the  Church  Catholic  be  de- 
stroyed because  the  Papacy  has  availed  itself  of  outward 
circumstances  to  extend  its  usurped  domination  over 
a  certain  number  of  individual  churches?  Assuredly 
not.  So  far  from  excluding  from  this  concord  churches 
which  have  resisted  her  usurpations,  it  is  the  Papacy 
itself  that  is  to  be  thus  excluded.  Not  only  has  she 
broken  with  churches  truly  Catholic,  but  she  has  vio- 
lated the  traditions  of  her  own  Church.  She  has  divid- 
ed them  into  two  distinct  parts,  like  the  Roman  episco- 
pate itself.  The  Roman  traditions  of  the  first  eight 
centuries  are  not  the  same  as  those  of  succeeding  ages. 
The  Papacy  has,  therefore,  lost  its  true  perpetuity  in 
the  very  points  wherein  it  has  innovated.  Thus  a  mem- 
ber of  the  Roman  Church  who  returns  to  the  prunitive 
doctrine  of  that  Church,  who  rejects  the  innovations  of 
the  Papacy,  reenters  at  once  into  the  Catholic  concord, 
belongs  to  the  ti'ue  Church  of  Jesus  Christ,  to  that 
Church  which  has  maintained  itself  in  its  double  char- 
acter of  perpetuity,  of  universality.  Far  from  us  be 
those  deplorable  accusations  of  schism  hurled  at  vener- 
able churches,  which  have  preserved  the  revealed  doc- 
trine in  its  primitive  purity,  which  have  preserved  the 
apostolic  ministry !     The  Papacy  calls  them  schismati- 


♦  To  similar  words,  almost  the  same  as  those  summed  up  by  the  author,  the  pre- 
sent pontiff,  Pius  IX.,  lately  presumed  to  add  the  awful  expression,  "  I  am  the  Way, 
the  Trjith,  and  the  Life." — Editor. 


28  author's  introduction. 

cal,  because  they  have  refused  to  acknowledge  its  usurp- 
ations. It  is  full  time  such  noisy  misapprehensions 
should  cease. 

We  proceed,  then,  to  demonstrate  that  it  is  the  Pa- 
pacy itself  which  is  guilty  of  schism ;  that  after  having 
provoked  division,  it  has  perpetuated  and  consolidated 
it  by  its  innovations ;  in  a  word,  that  it  has  caused 
its  divisions  to  pass  into  a  state  of  schism. 

This  proved,  we  shall  be  at  liberty  to  conclude  that 
those  who  are  considered  by  the  Papacy  as  schismatics 
because  of  their  opposition  to  her  autocracy,  are  in  real- 
ity the  true  CathoUcs,  and  that  it  has,  in  seeking  to  sepa- 
rate others  from  it,  become  itself  separated  from  the 
Church. 

There  are  those  in  the  West  who  would  present  the 
Papacy  as  the  legitimate  development  of  the  Christian 
idea,  as  Christianity  arrived  at  its  completion.  The 
truth  is,  that  it  is  the  negation  of  the  evangelical  idea, 
of  the  Christian  idea.  Can,  then,  the  negation  of  an 
idea  be  considered  as  its  development  ?  There  will  be 
some  astonishment  perliaps  in  seeing  us  enter  upon  such 
a  subject  with  this  degree  of  candor.  We  answer,  that 
at  the  epoch  in  which  we  live,  there  is  need  to  speak 
frankly  without  mental  reserve.  We  do  not  understand 
circumlocution  with  respect  to  error.  Indulgent,  chari- 
table toward  men  who  are  deceived,  we  beUeve  that 
we  obey  a  true  instinct  of  charity  in  waging  open  war 
with  the  errors  that  deceive  men.  "  To  speak  truth," 
as  wrote  the  Patriarch  Photius  to  Pope  Nicholas,  "  is 
the  greatest  act  of  charity." 

L'Aebe  GuErr^E. 


i^3^^ 


-Vc^.^;^; 


THE    PAPACY. 


I  HE  Cliristian  Church  is  funclamcntally  cliviJed. 
Were  it  desirable  to  expose  the  internal  feuds 
whleli  agitate  all  Christian  societies,  and  the 
contradictory  doctrines  of  tlie  sects  which 
have  revolted  against  the  Mother  Church,  they  would 
form  a^ sorrowful  picture. 

Yet  conflicts  and  heresies  have  their  purpose.  Indeed, 
as  to  doctrines  which  do  not  belong  to  the  deposit  of  rev- 
elation, and  which  have  not  been  defined^  controversy 
is  permitted  and  the  liberty  of  the  human  mind  is  to  bo 
respected.  As  for  heresy,  St.  Paul  tells  us  that  it  is 
necessary,  in  order  that  the  faith  of  believers  may  bo 
well  grounded  and  enlightened. 

But  above  all  divisions,  there  is  one  more  serious,  and 
which  before  all  must  attract  attention  because  of  its 
importance  and  of  the  facts  wdiich  have  provoked  it ; 
it  is  that  which  exists  between  the  Oriental  Catholic 
Church  and  the  Roman  Catholic  Church. 

Every  Christian  heart  must  be  saddened  in  view  of 
this  separation,  which  has  subsisted  for  so  many  centu- 
ries between  churches  which  have  alike  an  apostolic 
origin;  which  have,  save  one  word,  tha  same  creed; 


30  THE   PAPACY. 

which  have  the  same  sacraments,  the  same  priesthood, 
the  same  ethics,  the  same  worship.  In  spite  of  these 
elements  of  union,  division  has  been  since  the  ninth  cent- 
ury an  acknowledged  fact  between  these  churches. 
Upon  whom  recoils  the  responsibility  for  this  great  re- 
ligous  and  social  crime?  This  is  one  of  the  gravest 
questions  upon  which  a  theologian  can  enter;  he  can 
not  resolve  it  without  bringing  to  judgment  one  of  these 
churches,  without  accusing  it  of  having  despised  the 
word  of  Jesus  Christ,  Avho  made  uyxity  a  condition  essen- 
tial to  the  existence  of  his  Church.  It  is  evidently  only 
by  the  strangest  perversion  of  Christian  common-sense 
that  the  division  could  have  been  provoked  and  perpet- 
uated. This  is  admitted  in  the  two  churches,  Orient- 
al and  Roman.  For  this  reason  they  return  upon  each 
other  the  accusation  of  schism,  and  are  unwilling  to  ac- 
cept before  God  and  before  the  world  the  responsibility 
which  they  both  regard  as  a  stigma.  One  of  the  two 
must  be  guilty.  For  notwithstanding  reprehensible  acts 
might  be  specified  on  either  side,  these  minor  faults 
would  not  account  for  the  separation.  Discussions  upon 
secondary  points,  coldness,  occasioned  by  vanity  or  am- 
bition, can  engender  only  transient  controversies.  To 
determine  a  fundamental  and  permanent  division,  there 
must  be  a  more  radical  cause  and  one  which  touches  the 
very  essence  of  things. 

It  is  not  j)Ossible,  then,  to  resolve  the  question  we 
have  put  without  seeking  this  powerful  and  dccp-scated 
cause  which  has  provoked  the  schism  and  kept  it  alive 
to  the  present  day.  In  approaching  this  question,  we 
have  been  struck  at  the  outset  by  the  difference  that 
exists  between  the  repraaches  which  the  two  churches, 
Oriental  and  Roman,  urge  against  each  other  recipro- 
cally. The  latter  alleges  that  the  Oriental  Church  sepa- 
rated herself  (from  her)  to  satisfy  a  pitiful  grudge,  through 
interest,  through  ambition.      Such  motives  could,  phil- 


THE   PAPACY.  31 

osopliically,  explain  only  temporary  strifes.  The  Ori- 
ental Church,  on  the  contrary,  assigns  for  the  schism  a 
motive  radical  and  logical :  she  affirms  that  the  Roman 
Church  has  j^rovoked  it  in  seeking  to  impose  in  the  name 
of  God  an  inilawful  yoke  upon  the  Universal  Church, 
that  is,  the  Papal  sovereignty,  as  contrary  to  the  divine 
constitution  of  the  Church  as  to  the  prescriptions  of  the 
(Ecumenical  councils. 

If  the  accusations  of  the  Oriental  Church  are  well 
founded,  it  follows  that  it  is  the  Roman  Church  which 
is  guilty.  In  order  to  enlighten  ourselves  npon  this 
point,  we  have  investigated  the  relations  of  the  two 
churches  before  their  separation.  It  is,  indeed,  neces- 
sary to  establish  clearly  the  nature  of  these  relations  in 
order  to  see  from  which  side  has  come  the  rupture.  If 
it  be  true  that  the  Roman  Church  souirht  in  the  ninth 
century  to  impose  upon  the  whole  Church  a  rule  un- 
known to  the  previous  ages  and  therefore  unlawfid, 
we  must  conclude  that  she  alone  should  bear  the  re- 
sponsibility of  the  schism.  We  have  pursued  the  study 
Avith  calmness  and  free  from  prejudice;  it  has  brought 
us  to  these  conclusions :  (l.)  The  bishop  of  Rome  did  not 
for  eight  centuries  possess  the  authority  o^  divine  right 
which  he  has  since  sought  to  exercise. 

(2.)  The  pretension  of  the  bishop  of  Rome  to  the  sov- 
ereignty of  divine  right  over  the  Avhole  Church  was  the 
real  cause  of  the  division. 

We  are  about  to  produce  the  proofs  in  support  of 
these  conclusions.  But  before  presenting  them  we  think 
it  profitable  to  interrogate  the  Holy  Scrijjtures,  and  ex- 
amine whether  the  pretensions  of  the  bishop  of  Rome 
to  universal  sovereignty  of  the  Clmrch  have,  as  is  al- 
leged, any  ground  in  the  Word  of  God. 


32  THE   PAPACY. 


n. 


THE  PAPAL  AUTHORITY  CONDEMNED  BY  THE  WORD  OP  GOD. 


HE  Church,  according  to  St.  Paul,  is  a  temple, 
a  religious  edifice,  of  which  the  faithful  ai-e 
the  stones.  "  You  are,"  said  he  to  the  faith- 
ful of  Ephesus,  (2 :  20-22,)  "  built  xipon  the 
foundation  of  the  apostles  and  prophets,  Jesus  Christ 
himself  being  the  chief  corner-stone ;  in  whom  all  the 
building  fitly  framed  together  groweth  unto  a  holy  tem- 
ple in  the  Lord :  in  whom  ye  also  are  builded  together 
for  an  habitation  of  God  through  the  S])irit." 

Thus,  according  to  St.  Paul,  the  Church  is  the  society 
of  all  the  foithful  of  the  Old  as  well  as  of  the  New 
Testament;  the  first,  instructed  by  the  prophets,  and 
the  second,  by  the  apostles,  form  together  a  spiritual 
habitation,  having  for  its  foundation  Jesus  Christ,  waited 
for  by  the  one  as  the  Messiah,  adored  by  the  other  as 
the  Divine  Word  clothed  in  humanity. 

The  prophets  and  apostles  form  the  first  layers  of  this 
mystic  edifice.  The  faithful  are  raised  on  these  founda- 
tions and  form  the  edifice  itself;  finally  Jesus  Christ  is 
the  pi-incipal  stone,  the  coi'ner-stone  which  gives  solidity 
to  the  monument. 

There  is  no  other  foundation  or  principal  stone  than 
Jesus  Christ.  St.  Paul  writes  to  the  Corinthians,  (1 
Cor.  3  :  11,)  "For  other  foundation  can  no  man  lay  than 
that  is  laid,  which  is  Jesus  Christ."  Paul  gave  to  the 
Corinthians  this  lesson,  because  amoncc  them  many  at- 


THE   PAPACY.  33 

tached  tlicmsolvcs  to  the  j^rcachcrs  of  the  Gospel,  as 
thougli  they  had  been  the  corner-stone  of  the  Church. 
"  I  have  learned,"  said  he  to  them,  "  that  there  are  con- 
tentions among  you.  .  .  .  Eveiy  one  of  you  saith,  I 
am  of  Paul ;  and  I  of  Apollos ;  and  I  of  Cephas ;  and  I 
of  Christ.  Is  Christ  divided  ?  Was  Paul  crucified  for 
you?" 

Peter  himself  could  not  be,  according  to  St.  Paul, 
regarded  as  the  corner-stone  of  the  Church,  as  the  first 
vicar  of  Jesus  Christ,  any  more  than  'himself  or  Apollos. 
Peter  and  all  the  other  apostles  were  only  in  his  eyes  the 
ministers  of  Jesus  Christ,  the  first  layers  of  the  mystic 
edifice. 

St.  Paul  also  compares  the  Church  to  a  body,  of  which 
Jesus  Christ  is  the  head,  and  of  which  the  members  arc 
the  pastors  and  the  faithful. 

"Christ,"  said  he,  "gave  some,  apostles;  and  some, 
prophets ;  and  some,  evangelists ;  and  some,  pastors  and 
teachei'S  ;  for  the  perfecting  of  the  saints,  for  the  work  of 
the  ministry,  for  the  edifying  of  the  body  of  Christ : 
Till  we  all  come  in  the  unity  of  the  faith,  and  of  the 
knowledge  of  the  Son  of  God,  unto  a  perfect  man,  unto 
the  measure  of  the  stature  of  the  fullness  of  Christ: 
Tliat  we  henceforth  be  no  more  children,  tossed  to  and 
fro,  and  carried  about  with  every  wind  of  doctrine,  l:)y 
the  sleight  of  men,  and  cunning  craftiness,  whereby 
they  lie  in  wait  to  deceive.  But  speaking  the  truth 
in  love,  may  grow  up  into  him  in  all  things,  which  is 
tlic  head,  even  Chiiht:  FrcMu  whom  the  whole  body 
fitly  joined  together  and  compacted  by  that  which  every 
joint  supplieth,  according  to  the  effectual  working  in 
the  measure  of  every  part,  makcth  increase  of  the  body, 
unto  the  edifying  of  itself  in  love." 

There  is  then  but  one  Church,  of  which  Jesus  Christ 
is  the  head ;  which  is  composed  of  the  faithful  as  well 
as  the  pastors,  and  in  the  bosoin  of  Avhich  the  pastors 


34  THE  PAPACY. 

work  in  the  various  ministrations  which  are  confided  to 
them  to  develop  the  Christian  life,  of  which  charity  is 
the  sum. 

Do  we  perceive,  in  these  notions  of  the  Church,  a  mon- 
archy governed  by  a  sovereign  pontiff,  absolute  and  in- 
fallible ? 

Now  this  Church  which  St.  Paul  regards  as  the  de- 
pository of  divine  instruction — thig  Church  as  extended 
in  its  unity  as  in  its  universality — it  is  this  that  he  calls 
"the  pillar  and  ground  of  the  truth."     (1  Tim.  3  :  15.) 

"The  eldere  wluch  are  among  you  I  exhort,  who 
am  also  an  elder,  and  a  witness  of  the  sufferings  of 
Christ,  and  also  a  partaker  of  the  glory  that  shall  be 
revealed.  Feed  the  flock  of  God  which  is  among  you, 
taking  the  oversight  thereof,  not  by  constraint,  but  will- 
ingly ;  not  for  filthy  lucre,  but  of  a  ready  mind ;  neither 
as  being  lords  over  God's  heritage,  but  being  ensamples 
to  the  flock.  And  when  the  chief  Shepherd  shall  appear, 
ye  shall  receive  a  crown  of  glory  that  fadeth  not  away." 
(1  Peter  o  :l,  et  seq.) 

St.  Peter,  then,  whom  the  Roman  theologians  would 
make  the  absolute  prince  of  the  Church,  knew  but  one 
chief  Shei^herd,  Jesus  Christ.  As  for  himself,  he  was 
the  colleague  of  the  other  apostles  by  his  priesthood ;  he 
speaks  neither  of  his  primacy  nor  of  his  sovereignty.  He 
does  not  raise  himself  above  the  other  pastors  of  the 
Church,  whom,  on  the  contrary,  he  addresses  as  his 
equals  and  his  brethren  ;  justifying  himself  solely  in 
iiivincr  them  counsel,  in  that  he  was  a  witness  of  the  suf- 
ferings  of  Jesus  Christ  and  also  of  his  future  glory, 
which  had  been  revealed  to  him  upon  Mount  Tabor. 

AVe  have  not  met  in  Holy  Scripture  any  text  relating 
to  the  subject  we  are  now  considering,  where  Jesus 
Christ  is  not  regarded  as  the  sole  head  of  the  Church,  nor 
in  which  the  Church  is  not  represented  as  a  Avholo,  one  and 
identical,  composed  of  the  faithful  as  well  as  the  pastors. 


THE   PAPACY.  35 

It  can  not  be  disjiutcd  that  tliese  pastors  have  receiv- 
ed from  Jesus  Christ  the  powers  necessary  to  govern 
well  the  Church.  Furthermore,  it  can  not  be  denied 
that  these  powers  given  to  the  apostles  were  also  trans- 
mitted to  their  legitimate  successors;  for  the  Church 
and  the  body  of  pastors  should,  according  to  Christ's 
word,  be  perpetuated  for  all  ages.  Before  leaving  the 
earth,.Christ  said  to  his  apostles :  "  Go  teach  all  nations, 
baptizing  them  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the 
Son  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost ;  teaching  them  to  observe 
all  things  whatsoever  I  have  commanded  you :  and  lo, 
I  am  with  you  alway,  even  unto  the  end  of  the  world." 
(Matt.  28  :  19,  20.) 

Jesus  Christ  is  then  perpetually  with  the  body  of  the 
pastors-of  the  Church.  It  is  to  them  he  has  said  in  the 
person  of  the  apostles :  "  He  that  heareth  you  hcareth 
me;  and  he  that  despiseth  you  despiscth  me."  It  is 
still  to  them  he  says:  "Receive  ye  the  Holy  Ghost; 
whosesoever  sins  ye  remit  they  are  remitted  unto  them, 
and  whosesoever  sins  ye  retain  they  are  retained." 

This  power,  given  in  a  general  manner  to  all  the  apos- 
tles, had  been  promised  to  St.  Peter  previously,  and  in 
the  same  terms.  This  is  one  of  the  proofs  that  the  Popes 
bring  to  support  their  theory  of  a  special  and  superior 
power  that  Peter  had  received  from  Jesus,  and  that  lias 
been  transmited  to  them ;  but  they  do  not  remark  that 
the  power  was  given  to  all,  that  it  was  not  promised  to 
Peter  personally,  but  to  all  the  apostles  in  his  person. 
This  is  the  observation  of  St.  Cyprian,  and  of  the  greater 
number  of  the  Fathers  of  the  Church.  Other  texts  are 
also  cited  to  support  this  theory.  We  will  consider  them. 
Here  is  the  first : 

"  Thou  art  Peter,  and  upon  this  rock  will  I  build  my 
Church,  and  the  gates  of  hell  shall  not  prevail  against  it."* 

.  *  Matt.  16  :  18,  19.  It  will  here  be  remembered  that  both  the  text  and  its  applica- 
tion lose  nearly  all  their  power  when  translated  into  English.  In  French,  the  word 
stone  and  the  Christian  name  Peter  are  both  rendered  "  Pierre.". 


36  THE   PAPACY. 

If  we  believe  with  the  Popes,  this  text  proves  that 
St.  Peter  and  the  bishops  of  Rome,  his  successors,  have 
been  established  by  Jesus  Christ  as  the  corner-stone  of 
the  Church,  and  that  Error,  figured  by  the  gates  of  hell, 
sliall  never  prevail  against  this  stone  or  rock.  Hence, 
they  draw  this  result,  that  they  are  the  sovereign  heads 
of  the  Church. 

If  this  reasordng  be  true,  it  follows  that  St.  Peter, 
to  the  exclusioh  of  the  other  apostles,  was  established 
as  corner-stone  of  the  Church,  and  that  it  was  not  merely 
a  personal  privilege  to  him,  but  that  it  has  passed  to 
the  bishops  of  Rome. 

It  is  not  thus. 

First  of  all,  Peter  was  not  called  the  rock  of  the  Church 
to  the  exclusion  of  the  other  apostles.  He  was  not 
made  the  head  of  it.  We  see  a  proof  of  this  in  the  text 
of  St.  Paul,  already  cited,  in  which  that  apostle  dis- 
tinctly affirms  that  the  foundation-stones  of  the  Church 
are  the  prophets  and  apostles,  joined  together  by  the 
corner-stone,  which  is  Jesus  Chi-ist. 

The  title  of  "  rock  of  the  Church  "  can  not  be  given  to 
St.  Peter  without  forcing  the  sense  of  Holy  Scripture, 
without  destroying  the  economy  of  the  Church,  nor 
without  abandoning  Catholic  tradition.  Jesus  Christ 
has  declared  that  he  was  himself  that  stone  designated 
by  the  prophets,  (Matt.  21  :  42;  Luke  20  :  17,  18.)  St. 
Paul  says  that  Christ  was  that  Rock,  (1  Corinth.  10  :  4.) 
St.  Peter  teaches  the  same  truth,  (1  Pet.  2  :  7,  8.) 

The  greater  number  of  tue  Fathers  of  the  Church 
have  not  admitted  the  play  upon  words  that  our  Ultra- 
montanes  attribute  to  Jesus  Christ  in  applying  to  St. 
Peter  tlicse  words,  "  And  upon  this  rock  I  will  build  my 
Church,"*     In  order  to  be  convinced  that  their  interpre- 

•  Launoy,  Doctor  of  the  Sorbonne,  known  for  a  fp-eat  number  of  works  on  theol- 
ogy and  whose  vast  erudition  no  one  will  dispute,  has  sh^  wn  the  Catholic  trad- 
ition upon  that  question.    He  has  demonstrated  by  clear  and  authentic  texts,  that 


THE   FAFACY.  37 

tation  is  most  just,  it  is  only  necessary  to  recall  the  cir- 
cumstances under  wliich  Jesus  Christ  addressed  to  St. 
Peter  the  words  so  much  abused  by  the  Roman  theolo- 
gians. 

He  had  asked  of  his  disciples,  "Whom  do  men  say 
that  I  the  Son  of  man  am?"  The  disciples  replied, 
"  Some  say  John  the  Baptist,  some  Elias,  and  others  Je- 
remias,  or  one  of  the  prophets."  "  But  whom,"  replied 
Jesus,  "say  ye  that  I  am?"  Simon  Peter,  answering 
him,  said,  "Thou  art  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  the  living 
God."  Jesus  answered  him  and  said,  "  Blessed  art  thou, 
Simon  Bar-jona ;  for  flesh  and  blood  hath  not  revealed  it 
unto  thee,  but  my  Fatlier  which  is  in  heaven.  And 
I  say  unto  thee,  that  thou  art  Peter,  and  upon  this  rock 
I  will  build  my  Church,"  etc. 

These  words  mean  nothing  but  this :  "  I  say  unto  thee, 
whom  I  have  surnamed  Peter  because  of  the  firmness 
of  thy  faith,  I  say  to  thee  that  this  truth  that  thou  hast 
professed  is  the  foundation-stone  of  the  Church,  and  that 
Error  shall  never  prevail  against  it." 

As  St.  Augustine  remarks,  it  was  not  said  to  Simon, 
Thou  art  the  rock,  (lapierre,)  but  thou  art  Peter,  {Pierre.) 
The  words  of  St,  Augustine  deserve  to  fix  the  attention. 
"  It  is  not,"  said  he,  "  upon  thee  as  Peter,  but  upon  that 
rock  which  thou  hast  confessed."  "  Ce  ?i'est  pas,  dit  il 
sur  tot  qui  es  pierre,  mats  sur  la  pierre  qice  tu  as  con- 
fessee  .  .  .  tu  es  pierre,  et  sicr  cette  pierre  qrie  Ui  as  con- 
fessee,  s^ir  cette  pierre  que  tu  as  reconnne  en  disant, 
Thou  art  Christ,  etc.,  sicr  cette  pierre  Je  b&tirai  mon 
'eglise,^''  I  will  build  thee  upon  myself,  I  will  not  be  built 
upon  thee.  Those  who  wished  to  be  built  upon  men  said, 
"  I  atn  of  Paul,  I  am  of  A2yollos,  I  am  of  Cephas,  that 

but  a  small  number  of  Fathers  or  Doctors  of  the  Church  have  applied  to  St.  Peter 
the  title  of  rock,  upon  which  the  Church  should  be  built ;  while  the  most  of  them  do 
not  apply  this  to  him  at  all,  but  uniicrstand  these  words  of  Christ  in  quite  a 
different  manner.  His  collection  of  Letters  may  be  consulted,  which  are  the  treat- 
ises of  a  savant  of  the  first  order. 


38  THE    PAPACY. 

is  to  say,  of  Peter  /"  but  those  who  did  not  wish  to  be 
built  upon  Peter,  but  ujion  the  Rock,  they  said,  "  I  am 
of  Christ,"  In  the  French  language  the  name  given 
to  the  man  having  the  same  designation  as  that  of  the 
thing,  there  is  an  amphibology  which  is  not  found  either 
in  Greek  or  Latin.  In  these  languages  the  name  of 
the  man  has  a  masculine  termination,  while  the  name 
of  the  thing  has  a  feminine,  rendering  it  more  easy  to 
perceive  the  distinction  that  Christ  had  in  view  ;  more- 
over, it  is  easy  in  these  two  languages  to  remark,  by  the 
aid  of  the  pronoun  and  the  feminine  article  that  precedes 
the  word  la  pierre,  (the  stone,)  that  these  words  do  not 
relate  to  the  masculine  substantive  which  designates 
the  man,  but  to  another  object.  Besides,  the  Greek  word 
OTL  has  not  been  sufficiently  remarked,  which  hi  Latin  is 
exactly  rendered  by  the  word  quia,  which  means  he- 
cause,  {j)arce  qice.)  In  translating  thus  in  French, 
the  amphibology  is  avoided,  upon  which  is  founded  all 
the  reasoning  of  the  popes  and  their  partisans. 

In  Holy  Scripture  the  Mock  is  frequently  spoken  of 
in  a  figurative  sense.  This  word  always  signifies  Christ, 
and  never,  directly  or  indirectly,  St.  Peter.  The  best 
interpreter  of  Scripture  is  Scripture  itself.  It  is  then 
with  good  reason  that  the  immense  majority  of  the  Fa- 
thers and  Doctors  have  given  to  the  passage  in  question 
the  interpretation  that  Ave  claim  for  it — always  refer- 
ring either  to  Jesus  Christ,  or  to  faith  in  his  divinity  the 
word  rock,  which  the  Saviour  used.  This  interpretation 
has  the  threefold  advantai^e  of  beinrr  more  conformed  to 
the  text,  of  better  according  with  other  passages  of  Holy 
Scripture,  and  of  not  attributing  to  Christ  a  jilay  upon 
words  little  worthy  of  his  maJQgty.* 

*  Among  the  Fathers  who  have  given  this  interpretation  to  the  famous  passage, 
"  Tu  est  Petrw,"  we  will  name  St.  Hilary  of  Poitiers,  The  Trinity,  sixth  book ;  St. 
Gregory  of  Nyssa,  Advent  of  our  Lord ;  St.  Ambrose,  book  6,  on  chapter  H.  of  St. 
Luke  and  on  2d  chapter  of  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians  ;  St.  Jerome  upon  the  IStli  verse  of 
the  16th  chapter  of  St.  Matthew ;  St.  John  Chrysostom,  homilies  55  and  83  upou  St. 


THE  PAPACY.  39 

As  for  the  few  old  writers  who  admitted  this  play  upon 
words,  it  must  be  remembered  that  none  of  them  inter- 
preted the  text  in  a  manner  favorable  to  the  Papal  sov- 
ereignty, nor  drew  from  it  the  exaggerated.consequences 
of  this  system.  These  consequences  are  diametrically 
opposed  to  the  whole  of  their  doctrine. 

It  is  true  that  Christ  addressed  himself  directly  to 
Peter;  but  it  is  only  necessary  to  read,  the  context  to 
see  that  he  did  not  thereby  give  him  a  title  to  the  ex- 
clusion of  the  other  apostles.  In  fact,  after  having  pro- 
nounced the  words  we  have  quoted,  Jesus  Christ,  still 
addressing  himself  to  Peter,  added : 

"I  will  give  unto  thee  the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of 
heaven :  and  whatsoever  thou  slialt  bind  on  earth  shall  be 
bound  in  heaven."  In  the  two  parts  of  this  text,  Christ 
simply  made  two  lyromises  to  Peter;  the  first,  that  the^ 
Church  should  be  so  firmly  established  in  the  fiith  in 
his  personal  divinity,  that  error  should  never  prevail 
against  that  truth;  the  second,  that  he  Avould  give  to 
Peter  an  important  ministry  in  the  Church. 

It  is  not  possible  to  sustain  the  doctrine  that  the  pow- 
er of  the  keys  was  granted  exclusively  to  St.  Peter,  for 
Jesus  Christ  gave  it  to  all  of  them  at  the  same  time,  em- 
ploying the  same  terms  that  he  had  used  in  promising  it 
to  St.  Peter,  (Matt.   IS  :  18;)  moreover,  he  promised  to 

Matthew,  and  1st  chapter  Epistle  to  the  Galatians  ;  St.  Augustine,  Tracts  7  and  123 
upon  St.  John,  13th  sermon  upon  the  words  of  the  Lord,  taken  from  St.  Matthew,  1st 
Book  of  the  Retractations ;  Acacius,  homily  pronounced  at  the  Council  of  Ephesus  ;  St. 
Cyril  of  Alexandria,  4th  book  upon  Isaiah,  4th  book  o/"  <7i«  Trinity;  St.  Leo  I.,  Ser- 
mons 2(1  and  3(1,  upon  his  elevation  to  the  epijicopate,  sermon  %ipon  the  Trans- 

fguration  of  ourLord,  sermon  2d  upon  the  nativity  of  the  apostles  Peter  and  Paul ; 
St.  Gregory  the  Great,  3d  book,  33d  epistle;  St.  John  Damascene  upon  the  Trans- 

figuration,. 

This  interpretation  of  the  Fathers  was  preserved  in  the  West  until  the  era  when 
Ultramontanism  was  erected  into  a  system  by  the  Jesuits  in  the  16th  century.  It 
will  suffice  to  prove  this  to  cite  Jonas  of  OrIe:inp,  3d  book  on  the  worship  of  im- 
ages;  Hincmar  of  Rheims,  33d  essay;  Pope  Nicholas  L,  6th  letter  to  Photius  ;  Odo 
of  Cluny,  sermon  upon  the  see  of  St.  Peter ;  Rupert,  3d  book  upon  St.  Matthew  and 
litli  book  upon  the  Apocalypse ;  Thomas  Aquinas,  supplement  Q.  25,  art.  1 ;  An- 
Folm,  upon  the  16tli  chapter  of  St.  Matthew  ;  Eckius,2d  book  of  the  primacy  of  St. 
refer;  Cardinal  de  Cusa,  Catholic  Concordance,  2d  book,  chapters  13  and  IS. 


40  THE   PAPACY. 

all  the  apostles  collectively,  and  not  only  to  Peter,  to  be 
with  them  to  the  end  of  the  world. 

According  to  St.  Matthew,  (Matt.  28  :  18,  et  seq.,) 
Jesus  approached  his  disciples  and  said  to  them :  "  All 
power  is  given  unto  me  in  heaven  and  in  earth;  go 
ye  ...  .  teach  all  nations,  etc  ...  .  and  I  am  with  you 
alway,  unto  the  end  of  the  world." 

We  read  in  St.  John,  (John  20  :  21,et  seq.,)  "As  my 
Father  hath  sent  me,  even  so  send  I  you."  After  having 
said  these  words,  he  breathed  upon  them,  and  said  to 
them,  "  Receive  ye  the  Holy  Ghost ;  whosesoever  sins  ye 
remit,  they  are  remitted  unto  them ;  and  whosesoever 
sins  ye  retain,  they  are  retained." 

Evidently  Christ  gave  to  his  apostles  collectively  the 
prerogatives  he  had  promised  to  Peter.  The  promise 
jnade  to  Peter  has  been  realized  in  respect  to  the  whole 
body  of  pastors,  which  proves  that  Christ  only  spoke  to 
Peter  as  representing  his  colleagues,  as  being  a  type  of 
the  apostolic  body.* 

But,  it  may  be  aslced,  should  we  not  conclude  that 
what  was  addressed  to  Peter  alone  under  such  solemn 
circumstances,  was  the  bestowal  of  prerogatives  in  a 
special  and  superior  manner  ? 

It  must  be  remarked,  that  nowhere  in  the  Gospel  is  it 
seen  in  respect  to  Peter  alone,  that  any  such  promise  made 
to  him  has  been  realized.  Peter  received  this  power  only 
with  the  other  apostles.  But,  if  in  the  designs  of  Christ 
there  was  to  be  in  the  Church  a  supreme  and  absolute 
head,  this  institution  would  have  been  of  sufficient  import- 
ance to  cause  a  particular  mention  in  the  sacred  vol- 
ume, of  some  occasion  when  Jesus  Christ  delegated 
superior  powers  to  this  supi-eme  chief  On  the  con- 
trary it  is  seen  that  special  assistance  for  the  prcsei-- 

*  It  is  thus  tliis  text  is  interpreted  by  Origen,  upon  St.  Matthew  ;  St.  Cyprian,  Of 
the  rnitij  of  the  Church  ;  St.  Augustine,  Tracts  50  and  IIS  upon  St.  John,  sermon 
205  upon  the  Nativity  of  tlie  Apostles  Peter  and  Taul ;  St.  Ambrose  upon  3Stli  Psalm  ; 
St.  Pacian,  3d  letter  to  Sempronius. 


THE  PAPACY.  41 

vation  of  revealed  truth,  as  well  as  the  power  of  the  keys, 
was  given  to  Peter  only  collectively  with  his  fellow- 
workers  in  the  apostleship. 

St.  Paul  knew  no  more  than  the  evangelists  of  super- 
ior powers  having  been  conferred  upon  St,  Peter.  Be- 
side the  texts  that  we  have  already  quoted,  we  read  in 
the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians,  (2  :  7,  8,  9,)  that  Paul 
ascribes  to  himself,  among  the  Gentiles,  the  same  pow- 
er that  Peter  had  among  the  Jews,  and  that  he  did  not 
regard  Peter  as  suj^erior  to  James  and  John,  whom  he 
calls,  like  Peter,  the  pillars  of  the  Church.  He  even 
names  James,  Bishop  of  Jerusalem,  before  Peter  when 
he  gives  them  their  title  of  pillars  of  the  Church ;  he 
believed  so  little  in  any  authority  of  Peter,  that  he 
withstood  him  to  the  face,  because  he  was  to  be 
blamed. 

When  the  apostles  assembled  at  Jerusalem,  Peter 
spoke  in  council  only  as  a  simple  member  of  the  assem- 
bly, not  even  the  firet,  but  after  many  others.  He  felt 
himself  obliged  in  presence  of  the  other  apostles — some 
old  disciples  and  some  faithful  followers — to  renounce 
publicly  his  opinion  upon  the  necessity  of  circumcision 
and  other  Judaical  ceremonies.  James,  Bishop  of  Jeru- 
salem, summed  up  the  discussion,  proposed  the  resolu- 
tion which  was  adopted,  and  acted  as  the  veritable 
president  of  the  assembly.     (Acts  15  :  7.) 

The  apostles  then  did  not  consider  St.  Peter  as  the 
foundation-stone  of  the  Church.  Consequently  the  Papal 
interpretation  of  the  famous  text,  Ta  es  Petrus,  is  as  con- 
trary to  Holy  Scripture  as  it  is  to  Catholic  tradition. 

We  can  not  see  any  serious  objection  to  the  manner 
in  which  we  inidcrstand  it.  Our  interpretation  neces- 
sarily results  from  the  comparison  of  the  various  texts 
of  Scripture  relating  to  the  same  subject. 

From  a  Catholic  and  traditional  point  of  view  it  pre- 
sents every  guarantee — in  fine,  the  text  considered  in 


42  THE   PAPACY. 

itself  can  receive  no  other  legitimate  rendennjr.  From 
the  simple  reading  of  the  passage,  it  appears  that  the 
Saviour's  principal  object  was  to  concentrate  upon  him- 
self and  his  divine  mission  the  whole  attention  of 
his  disciples.  His  divinity  is  the  idea  to  which  evi- 
dently his  questions  and  the  answers  of  Peter  had  re- 
ference ;  the  conclusion  then  should  relate  to  that  idea. 
It  is  not  possible  to  apply  it  to  Peter,  as  head  of  the 
Church,  without  pretending  that  Christ,  after  having 
spoken  of  his  divinity,  drew  from  it,  as  a  consequence, 
the  Pontifical  power,  Avhich  is  an  idea  essentially  different. 

Let  us  now  see  if  the  other  texts  quoted  by  the  Ro- 
mish theologians  in  favor  of  the  Papal  authority  prove 
that  Jesus  Christ  has  truly  established  this  authority  in 
his  Church. 

They  supjDort  themselves  upon  this  passage  of  the  Gos- 
pel of  St.  Luke,  (St.  Luke  22  :  31,  et  seq.,)  "Simon, 
Simon,  behold ;  Satan  hath  desired  to  have  you  that  he 
may  sift  you  as  wheat.  But  I  have  prayed  for  thee, 
that  thy  faith  fail  not ;  and  when  thou  art  converted, 
strengthen  thy  brethren." 

Jesus  here  addresses  himself  to  the  apostles  in  the 
l^erson  of  Simon,  surnamed  Peter,  He  says  that  Satan 
has  asked  permission  to  sift  them,  that  is,  to  put  their 
faith  to  severe  trial.  It  is  necessary  to  remark  the  word 
you,  in  Latin  vos,  in  Greek  vfxag.  Satan  did  not  obtain 
the  op2'>ortunity  that  he  desired.  The  apostles  will  not 
lose  their  faith  in  presence  of  the  temptations  which  they 
will  be  made  to  endure  in  the  ignominious  death  of  their 
Master,  Peter  only,  in  punishment  for  his  presumption, 
shall  yield  and  then  deny  his  Master.  But,  thanks  to  the 
special  prayer  of  the  Saviour,  he  shall  return  in  repent- 
ance, and  Avill  thus  have  a  great  duty  to  fulfill  toward  the 
brethren  scandalized  by  his  fall — the  duty  of  strengthen- 
ing them,  and  repairing  by  his  zeal  and  faith  the  fault 
he  has  committed. 


THE   PAPACY.  43 

Truly  it  is  impossible  to  conceive  how  the  Popes 
have  been  so  bold  as  to  set  up  this  passage  of  St.  Luke 
in  order  to  establish  their  system.  It  must  be  remarked 
that  these  words  quoted  were  addressed  by  Christ  to 
St.  Peter  the  very  day  that  he  was  to  betray  him,  and 
that  they  contain  only  a  prediction  of  his  fall.  St.  Peter 
understood  this  well,  since  he  immediately  replied, "  Lord, 
I  am  ready  to  go  with  thee  both  into  prison,  and  to 
death ;"  but  Jesus  added,  "  I  tell  thee,  Peter,  the  cock 
shall  not  crow  this  day  before  that  thou  shalt  thrice 
deny  that  thou  knowcst  me." 

The  text  of  St.  Luke's  Gospel  is  a  proof  against  the 
firmness  of  St.  Peter's  faith,  rather  than  in  favor  of  it — 
d  fortiori,  then,  should  no  deductions  in  support  of 
his  superiority  in  the  matter  of  doctrine  or  government 
be  drawn  from  it.  And  the  Fathers  of  the  Church 
and  the  most  learned  interj^reters  of  Holy  Scripture  have 
never  dreamed  of  giving  to  it  any  such  meaning.  Aside 
from  modern  Popes  and  their  partisans,  who  wish  at  any 
l^iice  to  procure  proofs,  good  or  bad,  no  one  has  ever 
seen  in  the  words  above  quoted  more  than  a  warning 
given  to  Peter  to  repair  by  his  fiiith  the  scandal  of  his 
fall,  and  to  strengthen  the  other  apostles  whom  this  fall 
must  shake  in  their  fiith.*  The  obligation  to  confirm 
their  faith  proceeded  from  the  scandal  he  would  thus  oc- 
casion ;  the  words  conjirma  fratres  are  only  the  con- 
sequence of  the  word  conversus.  Now  if  one  would 
give  to  the  first  a  general  sense,  why  should  it  not  be 
given  to  the  second  ?  It  would  result  then,  if  the  succes- 
sors of  St.  Peter  have  inherited  the  prerogative  of  co7i- 
Jirniing  their  brethren  in  the  faith,  they  have  also  inher- 
ited that  of  the  need  of  conversion,  after  having  denied 
Jesus  Christ.  We  can  not  see  how  the  Pontifical  author- 
ity would  gain  by  that. 

*  It  was  not  until  the  ninth  century,  that  any  Father  or  ecclesiastical  writer  ad- 
mitted the  Ultramontane  interpretation. 


44  THE   PAPACY. 

The  Popes  who  have  found  sucli  a  singular  proof  to 
support  their  pretensions  in  the  thirty-first  and  thirty- 
second  verses  of  the  twenty-second  chapter  of  St.  Luke's 
Gospel,  have  been  very  guarded  in  their  quotation  of 
the  preceding  verses. 

The  evancjelist  relates  that  a  discussion  arose  amonor 
the  apostles,  as  to  who  should  be  considered  the  great- 
est among  them.  The  famous  words,  Tu  es  Petriis  were 
already  pronounced — this  should  prove  that  the  apostles 
did  not  receive  them  as  understood  by  the  Popes  of  mo- 
dern times.  The  very  eve  before  the  death  of  Christ, 
they  were  ignorant  that  he  had  chosen  Peter  to  be  the 
first  among  them,  and  the  foundation-stone  of  the  Church. 
Christ  took  part  in  the  discussion.  This  would  have 
been  an  excellent  opportunity  for  Him  to  proclaim  the 
power  of  Peter — moreover,  it  was  time  that  it  should 
be  done,  for  on  the  morrow  he  was  to  be  put  to  death. 
Did  he  do  it  ?  Not  only  did  the  Saviour  not  recognize 
the  superiority  he  is  said  to  have  promised  Peter,  but 
he  gave  altogether  a  contrary  lesson  to  his  apostles, 
saying  to  them,  "The  kings  of  the  Gentiles  exercise 
lordship  over  them,  and  they  that  exercise  authority  upon 
them  are  called  benefactors.  But  ye  shall  not  be  so ;  but 
he  -that  is  greatest  among  you,  let  him  be  as  the  younger, 
and  he  that  is  chief,  as  he  that  doth  serve." 

In  comparing  the  recital  of  St.  Luke  with  that  of  St. 
Mark,  it  will  be  seen  that  the  discussion  had  been  oc- 
casioned by  the  request  that  the  mother  of  James  and 
John  had  made  of  Christ  in  favor  of  her  children.  She 
had  begged  for  them  the  first  two  places  in  his  kingdom. 
Christ  did  not  tell  her  he  had  given  the  first  place  to 
Peter,  an  answer  which  would  have  been  very  natural 
and  even  necessaiy  if  St.  Peter  had  in  fact  been  invested 
with  a  superior  authority.  The  ten  other  apostles  were 
indignant  at  the  ambitious  demand  made  by  James  and 
John  through  their  mother ;  they  agitated  among  them- 


THE   PAPACY.  45 

selves  the  question  of  superiority.  Christ  then  gave  them 
the  lesson  which  we  have  related,  and  which  immediately 
precedes  the  text  upon  which  the  Roman  theologians  pre- 
tend to  support  their  system.     (Matt.  20  :  20,  et  seq.) 

The  value  of  this  pretended  proof,  after  the  context 
is  considered,  will  be  appreciated. 

They  cite  still  in  their  favor  a  passage  in  the  Gospel 
of  St.  John,  (21  :  15,  e<  seq.) 

•'  Jesus  said  to  Simon  Peter :  '  Simon,  son  of  Jonas, 
lovest  thou  me  more  than  these  ?'  Pie  saith  unto  him : 
'  Yea,  Lord ;  thou  knowest  that  I  love  thee.'  He  saith 
unto  him :  '  P^'ecd  my  lambs.'  He  saith  unto  him  again, 
the  second  time  :  '  Simon,  son  of  Jonas,  lovest  thou  me  ?' 
He  saith  unto  him :  '  Yea,  Lord ;  thou  knowest  that  I 
love  thee.'  He  saith  unto  him :  '  Feed  my  sheep.'  He 
saith  unto  him  the  third  time :  '  Simon,  son  of  Jonas, 
lovest  thou  me  ?'  Peter  was  grieved  because  he  saith 
unto  him  a  third  time,  Lovest  thou  me?  And  he 
said  unto  him :  '  Lord,  thou  knowest  all  tilings ;  thou 
knowest  that  I  love  thee.'  Jesus  said  unto  him :  '  Feed 
my  Sheep.' " 

The  Romftn  theologians  argue  thus  upon  this  text: 

"Jesus  Christ  has  given  to  St.  Peter  in  a  general 
manner  the  care  of  the  pasture  of  the  sheep  and  lambs ; 
now,  the  lambs  are  the  faithful,  and  the  sheep  are  the 
pastors ;  therefore,  Peter,  and  in  his  person  his  succes- 
sors, have  received  a  supreme  power  over  the  pastors 
(or  shepherds)  and  over  the  faithful." 

If  this  reasoning  were  just,  it  would  necessarily  prove 
1st,  That  the  function  confided  to  St.  Peter  was  not  also 
given  to  the  other  pastors  of  the  Church;  2d.  That 
the  lambs  signify  the  faithful,  and  the  sheep  the 
pastors. 

Now  St.  Peter  himself  teaches  us,  that  all  the  pastors 
of  the  Church  have  received  the  ministry  of  feeding  the 
flock  of  the  Lord.     We  have  already  quoted  the  passage 


46  THE   PAPACY. 

of  his  first  epistle,  in  which  he  said  to  all  those  who  were 
the  heads  of  different  churches,  "  Feed  the  flock  of  God 
which  is  among  you."       (1  Pet.  5 :  2.) 

Does  the  solemnity  with  which  Christ  gave  that  func- 
tion to  Peter  imply  that  he  possessed  it  in  a  superior 
manner?  Nothing  supports  this  idea.  The  Fathers 
of  the  Church  and  the  most  learned  commentators  have 
only  seen  the  expiation  of  his  threefold  denial  in  this 
threefold  attestation  of  love  that  Christ  drew  from 
Peter.  Nor  did  Peter  see  any  thing  else,  since  he 
"  was  grieved^  Had  he  conceived  that  Christ  therein 
conceded  to  him  any  superior  powers,  he  would  rather 
have  rejoiced  than  have  been  saddened  by  the  words 
that  were  addressed  to  him ;  but  he  was  convinced  that 
the  Saviour  demanded  a  triple  public  declaration  of  his 
fidelity,  before  reinstalling  him  among  the  shepherds  of 
his  flock,  because  he  had  given  reason  for  legitimate  sus- 
picions by  denying  his  Master  again  and  again.  Christ 
could  only  address  himself  to  Peter,  because  he  alone  had 
been  guilty  of  this  crime. 

Now,  do  the  lambs  signify  the  faithful  and  the  sheep 
the  pastors  ?  This  interpretation  is  altogether  arbitrary, 
there  can  be  nothing  found  in  Catholic  tradition  to  con- 
firm it ;  on  the  contrary,  tradition  formally  contradicts  it, 
and  it  would  be  impossible  to  quote  one  single  Father 
of  the  Church  in  its  support.  Moreover,  this  interpreta- 
tion is  not  conformable  to  Scripture.  The  words  sheep 
and  lambs  are  indifferently  used  in  Holy  Writ  to  de- 
scribe the  same  object.  Thus  we  read  in  St.  Matthew : 
"I  send  you  forth  as  sheep  in  the  midst  of  wolves," 
(Matt.  10:  16,)  and  in  St.  Luke:  "I  send  you  forth  as 
lambs  among  wolves,  (St.  Luke  10  :  3.)  The  word^Aeep 
in  Scripture  signifies  the  faithful.  We  read  in  Ezekiel, 
(34  :  6,)  "  My  sheep  wandered  through  all  the  moun- 
tains." "  Other  sheep  I  have  Avhich  are  not  of  this 
fold."     St.  Peter,  addressing  himself  to  the  faithful  of 


THE  PAPACY.  47 

Pontus,  Galatia,  Cappadocia,  Asia  and  Bithynia,  said 
to  them :  "  Ye  were  as  sheep  going  astray,  but  are  now 
returned  unto  the  Shepherd  and  Bishop  of  your  souls.  (1 
Pet.  2  :  25.) 

It  is  not  possible  therefore  to  found  or  give  different 
meanings  to  the  words  sheep  and  lambs,  nor  to  interpret 
the  word  sheep  in  the  sense  of  pastors  or  clergy. 

If  we  feel  obliged  to  give  to  the  two  expressions  a 
different  meaning,  would  it  not  be  more  natural  to  under- 
stand by  lambs  the  young  members  who  have  need  of 
the  most  tender  care,  and  by  sheep  to  understand  those 
of  maturer  age,  according  to  the  faith  ? 

Thus  the  Papal  interpretation  is  so  thoroughly  divest- 
ed of  foundation,  that  a  commentator  upon  the  Gospels 
— one  who  would  not  be  suspected  by  Roman  theolo- 
gians, the  Jesuit  Maldonat — speaks  of  it  in  this  lan- 
guage :  "  We  should  not  reason  acutely,  in  order  to 
discover  why  Christ  employs  the  word  lambs  rather 
than  sheep.  He  who  would  do  this,  should  carefully 
consider  that  he  will  only  appear  ridiculous  to  the 
learned,  for  it  is  incontestable  that  those  whom  Christ 
calls  his  lambs  are  the  same  as  those  he  elsewhere  desig- 
nates as  his  sheep.  (Comment,  in  cap.  xxi.  John,  §  30.) 
St.  Peter  then  Avas  instituted  neither  the  foundation- 
Btone  of  the  Church  nor  its  chief  pastor. 

It  need  not  be  denied,  however,  that  a  certain  primacy 
was  accorded  to  this  apostle.  Although  he  was  not  the 
first,  in  order  of  time,  chosen  by  our  Lord  as  discijjle, 
he  is  named  the  first  by  St.  Matthew — this  evangelist 
wishing  to  name  the  twelve  apostles,  thus  expresses 
himself:  "The  first  Simon,  who  is  called  Peter,  and 
Andrew  his  brother,"  etc.  (Matt.  10:2.)  St.  Luke  and  St. 
Mark  also  name  St.  Peter  the  first,  although  otherwise 
they  do  not  follow  the  same  order  in  naming  the  others. 
Upon  many  occasions  Christ  gave  to  Peter  evidences 
of  particular  consideration.     His  surname  of  Peter,  with- 


48  THE   PAPACY. 

out  having  all  the  importance  that  the  Roman  theolo- 
gians attach  to  it,  was  nevertheless  given  to  him  to 
signify  the  finnness  of  his  faith,  and  for  the  purpose  of 
honoring  him.  Ordinarily  Peter  was  always  the  first  to 
question  our  Lord,  and  to  answer  him  in  the  name  of 
the  other  disciples.  The  evangelists  use  this  expres- 
sion, "  Peter  and  those  with  him,"  to  describe  the  apos- 
toUc  body.  (Mark  1  :  36  ;  Luke  8  :  45  ;  9  :  32.)  From 
these  facts  can  we  conclude,  with  the  Doctor  de  la 
Chambre,  "  that  Christ  had  granted  to  St.  Peter  above 
all  his  colleagues  in  the  apostolate,  a  primacy  of  juris- 
diction and  authority  in  the  government  of  the  Church  ? 
(Traite  de  I'Eglise,  1st  vol.)  This  consequence  is  not 
logical.  In  the  first  place  it  is  possible  to  be  first  in 
a  corporation  without  having  necessarily  jurisdiction  and 
authority — to  be,  as  it  is  said,^r5^  among  equals — pri- 
mus inter  2)a7'es.  Moreover,  St.  Peter  is  not  always 
named  first  in  the  Holy  Scriptures ;  thus  St.  John  names 
Andrew  before  him,  (1  :  44 ;)  St.  Paul  names  him  after 
James,  (Galat.  2:9;)  he  even  names  him  after  the  other 
apostles  and  the  brethren  of  the  Jjord,  (1st  Corinth.  9  : 
6.)  "  Peter  then  was  only  the  first  among  the  apostles  as 
Stephen  was  the  first  among  deacons."  These  words  are 
St.  Augustine's,  (Sermon  316.)  Origen,  (upon  St.  John,) 
St.  Cyprian  (7 1st  letter  to  Quint.)  have  the  same  idea. 
We  can  affirm  that  no  Father  of  the  Church  has  seen  in 
the  primacy  of  Peter,  any  title  to  jurisdiction  or  absolute 
authority  in  the  government  of  the  Church.  They  would 
not  have  been  able  to  draw  these  conclusions  without 
contradicting  Holy  Scripture  itself 

Christ  forbade  liis  apostles  to  take,  in  relation  to  each 
other,  the  titles  of  Master,  Doctor,  and  even  Father,  or 
Pope,  which  signifies  the  same  thing.  His  words  are 
positive,  (Matt.  23:8):  "Be  ye  not  called  Rabbi :  for 
one  is  your  Master,  even  Christ ;  and  all  ye  are  brethren. 
And  call  no  man  your  father  upon  earth,  for  one  is  your 


THE   PAPACY.  49 

Father  which  is  in  heaven.  Neither  be  ye  called  masters : 
for  one  is  your  Master,  even  Christ.  But  he  that  is 
greatest  among  you  shall  be  your  servant." 

Upon  comparing  these  words  of  the  Gospel  with  the 
pictures  that  the  Roman  theologians  make  of  the  pre- 
rogatives of  the  bishop  of  Rome,  it  will  be  easily  seen 
that  these  theologians  are  not  in  the  tnith. 

St.  Matthew  relates  that  Peter  having  interrogated  Je- 
Bus  Christ  upon  the  prerogatives  of  the  apostles,  our 
Lord  answers  him,  saying :  "  Verily  I  say  unto  you,  that 
ye  which  have  followed  me  in  the  regeneration,  when 
the  Sou  of  Man  shall  sit  in  the  throne  of  his  glory,  ye 
shall  also  sit  upon  twelve  thrones,  judging  the  twelve 
tribes  of  Israel" 

If  Christ  had  destined  a  superior  seat  to  Peter,  if  he 
had  granted  to  him  a  higher  position  than  to  the  other 
npostles,  would  he  have  said  to  St.  Peter  himself  that 
the  twelve  apostles  should  be  seated  upon  twelve  thrones 
without  distinction  ? 

The  conclusion  from  all  this  is,  that  there  is  in  the 
Church  but  one  master,  but  one  lord,  one  chief  shep- 
herd. 

Saith  Christ:  "I  am  the  Good  Shepherd."  {^6\xn 
10:  11.)  "Ye  call  me  Master  and  Lord,  and  ye  say 
well,  for  so  I  am."  "  One  is  your  Master,  even  Christ." 
(Matt.  23  :  10.) 

He  is  seated  alone  upon  the  throne  of  his  majesty,  in 
the  heavenly  city  whose  "  wall  has  twelve  foundations, 
and  in  them  the  names  of  the  twelve  apostles  of  the 
Lamb.  (Rev.  21:14.)  The  first  pastors  are  there  upon  the 
their  seats,  judging  the  tribee  of  the  new  people  of  God. 
If  any  discussions  arise  that  can  not  be  amicably  set- 
tled, they  must  be  carried  to  this  tribunal ;  not  to  one 
alone,  but  before  the  whole  Church,  represented  by 
those  ordained  to  govern  it. 

There  is  nothing  then  in  the  writings  of  the  New  Tes- 


50  THE   PAPACY. 

taraent  which  is  even  remotely  favorable  to  that  sove- 
reif^n  authority  that  the  Romish  theologians  ascribe  to  St. 
Peter  and  to  the  bishops  of  Rome,  whom  they  consider 
his  successors. 

It  may  be  even  said  that  Scripture  formally  contradicts 
this  authority.  We  have  already  quoted  some  words 
of  Christ  sufficiently  positive.  The  book  of  the  Acts, 
and  the  Epistles  contain  facts  demonstrating  that  St. 
Peter  did  not  enjoy  any  superiority  in  the  apostolic  col- 
lege. In  fact,  it  is  said  in  the  Acts,  (8  :  14,)  "Now 
when  the  apostles  which  were  at  Jerusalem  heard  that 
Samaria  had  received  the  word  of  God,  they  sent  unto 
them  Peter  and  John."  Peter  was  subordinate,  not 
only  to  the  apostolic  college,  of  which  he  was  a  mem- 
ber, but  to  a  lesser  number  of  apostles  in  convention 
at  Jerusalem ;  since  he  received  from  them  a  mission. 
In  the  same  book,  (11  :  2-3,)  we  read  that  the  faithful 
of  the  cireuyncision  reproached  Peter  for  mingling  with 
the  uncircumcised,  and  Peter  excused  himself  by  re- 
lating that  he  had  obeyed  an  express  order  of  God.  Is 
this  the  mode  in  which  a  chief  is  ordinarily  treated,  or 
that  one  supreme  would  act  in  relation  to  subordinates  ? 
At  the  council  of  Jerusalem,  (Acts  15  :  7,)  Peter  was 
not  presiding,  it  was  James  who  gave  sentence,  (19th 
verse,)  Peter  spoke  but  in  his  turn  as  a  simple  member. 
Yet  the  presidency  belonged  to  him  by  right,  if  he  had 
been  vested  with  authority  and  jurisdiction  over  the 
whole  apostolic  body.  St.  Paul  (Epis.  Galatians  2  :  7, 
etc.)  refutes  the  primacy  of  Peter.  He  affirms  that  he  is 
his  equal,  he  relates  having  reprimanded  Peter  for  "  walk- 
ing not  according  to  the  truth  of  the  Gospel,"  (14th  verse.) 
Again,  he  denies  this  (1  Corinth.  3  :  4,  5,  22)  when  he 
affirms  that  Peter  is  but  a  simple  minister  like  himself, 
like  Apollos,  who  must  not  attach  the  faithful  to  them- 
selves, but  only  as  ministers  of  Christ,  their  only  Mas- 
ter.    Finally,  St.  Peter  himself  denies  the  primacy  with 


THE  PAPACY.  51 

which  he  has  since  been  invested  by  Romish  theologi- 
ans, when  he  addressed  himself  to  the  j^astors  of  the 
churches  which  he  had  founded  as  their  colleague.  (1 
Pet.  1:1.) 


62  THE  PAPACY, 


m. 


OF    THE    AUTHORITY    OF    THE    BISHOPS    OF   ROME    IN   THE 
FIKST    THEEE    CENTURIES. 

ITSTORY  shows  us  that  the  Fathers  and  Bish- 
ops, during  the  first  eight  centuries,  liavo 
given  to  Holy  Scripture  the  same  interpreta- 
tion that  we  have  just  set  forth.  If  the 
Bishop  of  Rome  had  by  divine  right  enjoyed  universal 
authority  in  the  Church,  if,  as  the  successor  of  St.  Peter, 
he  had  been  the  vicar  and  representative  of  Christ,  the 
necessary  centre  of  the  Church,  there  is  no  doubt  that 
these  prerogatives  would  have  been  recognized  by 
Christian  antiquity,  the  faithful  guardian  of  the  Faith 
and  of  Divine  Institutions.  Though  the  Church  suffer, 
after  the  lapse  of  ages,  some  decline  on  her  human  side, 
that  is  to  say,  in  the  men  that  govern  her,  and  form  part 
of  her,  it  will  not  be  assumed  that  this  decay  appeared 
at  the  outset.  It  is  natural  and  logical  to  go  back  to 
the  beginnings  of  an  institution  to  become  acquainted 
with  its  true  character ;  it  is  there  M'e  find  the  necessary 
starting-point  from  which  to  trace  its  development,  its 
progress,  or  lapses,  age  by  age.  If  we  prove  that  the 
primitive  Church  did  not  recognize  in  the  Bishop  of 
Rome  the  authority  which  he  now  assumes,  that  this 
authority  is  only  an  usurpation  dating  from  the  ninth 
century,  it  must  necessarily  be  concluded,  that  this  au- 
thority is  not  of  Divine  origin,  and  that  consequently, 
it  is  the  duty  of  every  Church  and  all  the  faithful  to 
protest  against  it,  and  combat  with  it. 


THE    FAPACr.  53 

Now  we  can  affirm,  after  deep  and  conscientious  study 
of  the  historical  and  doctrinal  remains  of  the  first  eight 
centuries  of  the  Church,  that  the  Bishop  of  Rome  has 
no  ground  for  claiming  universal  authority,  that  such 
authority  has  foundation  neither  in  the  Word  of  God 
nor  the  laws  of  the  Church. 

The  first  document  by  which  the  partisans  of  the  Pa- 
pal sovereignty  justify  themselves,  is  the  letter  written 
by  St.  Clement  in  the  name  of  the  Church  at  Rome  to 
the  Church  at  Corinth.  They  assert,  that  it  was  written 
by  virtue  of  a  superior  authority  attached  to  his  title  of 
Bishop  of  Rome. 

Now,  it  is  unquestionable,  1st.  That  St.  Clement  was 
not  Bishop  of  Rome  when  he  wrote  to  the  Corinthians, 
2d.  That  in  this  matter,  he  did  not  act  of  his  OAvn  au- 
thority, but  in  the  name  of  the  Church  at  Rome,  and 
from  motives  of  charity. 

The  letter  signed  by  St.  Clement  was  written  a.d.  69, 
immediately  after  the  persecution  by  Nero,  which  took 
place  between  the  years  64  and  68,  as  all  learned  men 
agree.  Many  scholars,  accepting  as  an  indisputable  fact 
that  the  letter  to  the  Corinthians  was  written  while 
Clement  was  Bishop  of  Rome,  assign  its  date  to  the 
reign  of  Domitian.  But  Clement  only  succeeded  Anen- 
cletus  in  the  See  of  Rome,  in  the  twelfth  year  of  Do- 
mitian's  reign,  that  is  to  say,  a.d.  93,  and  held  this  See 
until  A.D.  102.  The  testimony  of  Eusebius  leaves  no 
doubt  upon  this  point.* 

Now,  it  may  be  seen  from  the  letter  itself  that  it  was 
written  after  a  persecution  ;  if  it  be  pretended  that  this 
persecution  was  that  of  Domitian,  then  the  letter  must 
be  dated  in  the  last  years  of  the  first  century,  since  it 
was  chiefly  in  the  years  95  and  96  that  the  persecution 
of  Domitian  took  place.  Now,  it  is  easy  to  see  from 
the  letter  itself,  that  it  was  written  before  that  time,  for 

•  Euseb.  Eccl.  Hist.  Book  III.  chaps,  xlil.,  xv.,  xxxlv. 


54  THE  PAPACY. 

It  Bpealcs  of  the  Jewish  sacrifices  as  still  existing  in  the 
temple  of  Jerusalem.  The  temple  was  destroyed  with 
the  city  of  Jerusalem,  by  Titus,  a.d.  TO.  Hence,  the 
letter  must  have  been  written  before  that  year.  Be- 
sides, the  letter  Avas  written  after  some  persecution,  in 
which  had  suftered,  at  Rome,  some  very  illustrious  mar- 
tyrs. There  was  nothing  of  the  kind  in  the  persecution 
of  Domitian.  The  persecution  of  Nero  lasted  from  the 
year  G4  to  the  year  68.  Hence  it  follows,  that  the  letter 
to  the  Corinthians  could  only  have  been  Avritten  in  the 
year  09,  that  is  to  say,  twenty-four  yeaks  before  Cle- 
ment Avas  Bishop  of  Rome. 

In  presence  of  this  simple  calculation  what  becomes 
of  the  stress  laid  by  the  partisans  of  Papal  sovereignty, 
upon  the  importance  of  this  document  as  emanating 
from  Pope  St.  Clement  ? 

Even  if  it  could  be  shown  that  the  letter  of  St.  Cle- 
ment was  written  during  his  episcopate,  this  would 
prove  nothing,  because  this  letter  was  not  w^-itten  by 
him  by  virtue  of  a  superior  and  personal  authority  pos- 
sessed by  him,  but  from  mere  charity,  and  in  the  name 
of  the  Church  at  Home.  Let  us  hear  Eusebius  upon 
this  subject : 

"  Of  this  Clement  there  is  one  epistle  extant,  acknow- 
ledged as  genuine,  ....  wliich  he  Avrote  in  the  name 
of  the  Church  at  Rome  to  that  of  Corinth,  at  the  time 
when  there  was  a  dissension  in  the  latter.  This  we 
know  to  have  been  publicly  read,  for  common  benefit,  in 
most  of  the  churches,  both  in  former  times  and  in  our 
own ;  and  that  at  the  time  mentioned,  a  sedition  did 
take  place  at  Corinth,  is  abundantly  attested  by  Hege- 
sippus."* 

Eusebius,  further  on,  recurs  to  the  letter  of  Clement, 
and  again  remarks  that  it  was  written  in  the  name  of 

*  Kuseb.  Eccl.  Hist.  Book  Til.  chap.  xvl. 


THE  FAFACV.  55 

the  Church  at  Home.*  lie  could  not  say  more  explicitly, 
that  Clement  did  not  in  this  matter  act  of  his  own  au- 
thority^ by  virtue  of  any  power  he  individually  pos- 
sessed. Nothing  in  the  letter  itself  gives  a  suspicion 
of  such  authority.  It  thus  commences :  "  The  Church 
of  God  which  is  at  Rome,  to  the  Church  of  God  which 
is  at  Corinth."  The  writer  speaks  of  the  Ecclesiastical 
Ministry,  in  relation  to  several  Priests  whom  the  Corin- 
thians had  rejected  most  unjustly;  he  looks  upon  this 
Ministry  as  wholly  derived  from  the  Apostolic  Suc- 
cession, attributing  neither  to  himself  nor  to  others 
any  Primacy  in  it. 

There  is  every  reason  to  believe  that  St.  Clement 
drauglited  this  letter  to  the  Corinthians.  From  the  first 
centuries  it  has  been  considered  as  his  work.  It  was 
not  as  Bishop  of  Rome,  but  as  a  disciple  of  the  Apos- 
tles, that  he  wrote  it.  Without  having  been  charged 
with  the  government  of  the  Roman  Church  he  had  been 
made  Bishop  by  St.  Peter,  and  had  been  the  companion 
of  St.  Paul  in  many  of  his  Apostolic  visitations.  It 
may  be,  that  he  had  worked  with  St.  Paul  for  the  con- 
version of  the  Corintliians.  It  was  natural,  therefore, 
that  he  should  be  commissioned  to  draw  up  the  letter 
of  the  Church  of  Rome  to  a  Church  of  which  he  had 
been  one  of  the  founders.  And  so,  Clement  speaks  to 
them  in  the  name  of  the  Apostles,  and  above  all  of  St. 
Paul,  who  had  begotten  them  to  the  faith.  Even  had 
he  written  to  them  as  Bishop  of  Rome,  it  would  not  be 
possible  to  infer  any  thing  from  this  in  favour  of  his 
universal  authority.  St.  Ignatius  of  Antioch,  St.  Ire- 
na3us  of  Lyons,  St.  Dionysius  of  Alexandria,  have  Avrit- 
ten  letters  to  divers  churches,  not  excepting  that  of 
Rome,  without  thereby  pretending  to  any  other  autho- 
rity than  that  they  possessed  as  bishops,  to  do  God's 
work  in  all  places. 

•  Ibid.  chap,  xxxvlil. 


66  THE    PAPACY. 

Nothing  can  properly  be  inferred,  either  from  tlic 
letter  itself  or  from  the  circumstances  under  which  it 
was  written,  that  should  make  this  j)roceeding  on  the  part 
of  the  Corinthians  appear  in  the  light  of  an  acknowledg- 
ment of  any  superior  authority  in  the  Bishop  or  the 
Church  of  Rome  ;  or  this  answer  in  tlie  light  of  an 
authoritative  act.  The  Corinthians  addressed  themselves 
to  a  Church  where  dwelt  the  fellow-labourers  of  St.  Paul, 
their  father  in  thfi  faith ;  and  that  Church,  through  Cle- 
ment as  her  organ,  recommended  peace  and  concord  to 
them,  without  the  least  pretension  to  any  authority 
whatever. 

Tlius,  in  the  intervention  of  Clement,  no  proof  can  be 
found  to  support  the  pretended  authority  of  the  Bish- 
ops of  Rome.  Clement  was  the  deputy  of  the  clergy  of 
Rome  in  that  affair,  chosen  because  of  his  capacity,  his 
former  connection  Avith  the  Corinthians,  his  relation 
with  the  Apostles,  and  the  influence  he  had  for  these 
various  reasons.  But  he  did  not  act  as  Bishop  of  Rome, 
much  less  as  having  authority  over  the  Church  of  Cor- 
inth. 

In  the  second  century  the  question  concerning  Easter 
was  agitated  with  much  warmth.  Many  Oriental 
Churches  wished  to  follow  the  Judaical  traditions,  pre- 
served by  several  Apostles  in  the  celebration  of  that 
feast,  and  to  hold  it  upon  the  fourteenth  day  of  the 
March  moon  ;  other  Eastern  Churches,  in  agreement 
with  the  Western  Churches,  according  to  an  equally 
Apostolic  tradition,  celebrated  the  festival  of  Easter  the 
Sunday  following  the  fourteenth  day  of  the  3Iarch 
moon. 

The  question  in  itself  considered  was  of  no  great  im- 
portance ;  and  yet  it  was  generally  thought  tliat  all  the 
Churches  should  celebrate  at  one  and  the  same  time  the 
great  Christian  festival,  and  that  some  should  not  be 


THE   PAPACY.  57 

rejoicing   over   the  resurrection  of  the  Saviour,  while 
others  were  contemplating  the  mysteries  of  his  death. 

How  was  the  question  settled  ?  Did  the  Bishop  of 
Rome  interpose  his  authority  and  overrule  the  discus- 
sion, as  would  have  been  the  case  had  he  enjoyed  a 
supreme  authority  ? 

Let  us  take  the  evidence  of  History.  The  question 
having  been  agitated,  "there  were  synods  and  convo- 
cations of  the  Bishops  on  this  question,"  says  Eusebius,* 
"  and  all  unanimously  drew  up  an  ecclesiastical  decree, 
which  they  communicated  to  all  the  Churches  in  all 
places.  .  .  .  There  is  an  epistle  extant  even  now  of 
those  who  were  assembled  at  the  time  ;  among  whom 
presided  Theophilus,  Bishop  of  the  Church  in  Cesarea 
and  Narcissus,  Bishop  of  Jerusalem.  There  is  another 
epistle"  [of  the  Roman  Synod]  "extant  on  the  same 
question,  bearing  the  name  of  Victor.  An  epistle  also 
of  the  Bishops  in  Pontus,  among  whom  Palmas,  as  the 
most  ancient,  presided ;  also  of  the  Churches  of  Gaul, 
over  whom  Irenrcus  presided.  Moreover,  one  from 
those  in  Osrhoeno,  and  the  cities  there.  And  a  particu- 
lar epistle  from  Bacchyllus,  Bishop  of  the  Corinthians ; 
and  epistles  of  many  others  who,  advancing  one  and 
the  same  doctrine,  also  passed  the  same  vote." 

It  is  evident  that  Eusebius  speaks  of  the  letter  of  the 
Roman  synod  in  the  same  terms  as  of  the  others  ;  he 
does  not  attribute  it  to  Bishop  Victor,  but  to  the  as- 
sembly of  the  Roman  Clergy ;  and  lastly,  he  only  men- 
tions it  in  the  second  place  after  that  of  the  Bishoj^s  of 
Palestine. 

Here  is  a  point  irrefragably  established  ;  it  is  that  in 
the  matter  of  Easter,  the  Church  of  Rome  discussed 
and  judged  tlie  question  in  the  same  capacity  as  the 
other  churches,  and  that  the  Bishop  of  Rome  only 
signed  the  letter  in  the  name  of  the  synod  which  repre- 

*  Euseb.  Eccl.  Hist.  Book  V.  chap.  xxUi 


58  THE    PAPACY. 

sentetl  that  Church.  The  partisans  of  the  Papal  antlior- 
ity  affirm  that  it  was  Victor  wlio  cominanded  the  coun- 
cils to  assemble.     This  assertion  is  altocrether  false.* 

Several  Oriental  Bishops  did  not  conform  to  the  deci- 
sion of  the  others.  Polycrates  of  Ephesus,  above  all, 
protested  against  it.f  Then  a  lively  discussion  arose 
between  him  and  Victor,  Bishop  of  Rome,  who  seemed 
to  think  that  the  Bishop  of  Ephesus  would  be  alone  in 
liis  opinion,  and  advised  him,  in  consequence,  to  ask  tlie 
opinion  of  the  other  Bishops  of  his  province.  Polycrates 
complied,  and  those  Bishops  declared  themselves  in  favor 
of  his  opinion  ;  he  wrote  thus  to  Victor,  who  threatened 
to  separate  them  from  his  communion. 

This  did  not  move  Polycrates  ;  he  replied  vigorously, 
saying  to  him  particularly  .  "  They  who  are  greater 
than  I  have  said  '  Ave  ought  to  obey  God  rather  than 
men.'  Upon  this  Victor,  the  Bishop  of  the  Church 
of  Rome,  forthwith  endeavoured  X  to  cut  off  the  Church- 
es of  all  Asia,  together  with  the  neighboring  Churches, 
as  heterodox,  from  the  common  unity.  And  be  publish- 
ed abroad  by  letters,  and  proclaimed  that  all  the  brethren 
there  were  wholly  excommunicated."     Thus  Eusebius. 

It  is  difficult  to  believe  tliat  the  partisans  of  the  Ro- 
man pretensions  can  find  in  these  words  of  Eusebius 
and  in  the  conduct  of  Victor  any  proof  in  favor  of  their 
system.  Without  much  effort,  they  might  find  in  them 
a  proof  to  the  contrary  The  expression  of  Eusebius, 
that  "  Victor  endeavoured^''  etc.,  must  first  be  noticed. 
It  is  clear  that  those  who  endeavour  have  not  in  them- 
selves the  2^otc€r  to  do  that  which  they  have  in  view, 
otherwise  the  act  would  follow  the  will.  Victor^  how- 
ever, did  all  he  could  in  order  that  this  excommunica- 
tion should  be  recognized — he  e\eT\  pronounced  \X  ;  but 

*  Among  the  Roman  theologians  who  make  this  false  assertion,  we  will  particu- 
larly name  Darruel  in  his  work  entitlerl  Du  Pape  et  de  aes  Droits.  This  book 
sums  up  all  tlie  errors  and  exaggerations  of  the  Romish  theologians. 

t  Eusebius  Eccl.  Uist.  Book  V.  chap.  xxiv.  %  neipdrai ;  Euseb.  loc.  cit 


THE   PAPACY.  59 

that  act  remained  but  an  attempt,  and  had  to  be  ratified 
by  the  other  Churches  in  order  to  be  valid.  Victor  did 
not  have,  then,  as  Bishop  of  Rome,  the  power  to  ex- 
communicate other  Churches,  since  the  effect  did  not 
follow  the  sentence  which  he  believed  himself  entitled 
to  give  in  the  name  of  the  Western  Churches,  because 
of  the  importance  of  his  See. 

The  Bishops,  who  would  have  submitted  to  his  sen- 
tence, if  they  had  recognized  in  him  the  Head  of  the 
Church,  invested  with  universal  authority,  not  only  did 
not  obey  him,  but  strongly  censured  his  conduct. 

"  But  this,"  adds  Eusebius,  "  was  not  the  opinion  of 
all  the  Bishops.  They  immediately  exhorted  him," 
[Victor]  "  on  the  contrary,  to  contemplate  that  course 
that  was  calculated  to  promote  peace,  unity,  and  love 
to  one  another." 

Thus,  instead  of  believing  that  imity  consisted  in 
union  with  Victor,  the  bishops  exhorted  him  to  observe 
better  the  true  notions  of  unity.  Many  went  even  fur- 
ther. *'  There  are  also  extant,"  continues  Eusebius, 
"  the  expressions  they  used,  who  pressed  upon  Victor 
with  much  severity.  Among  these  also  was  Irenoeus, 
who,  in  the  name  of  those  brethren  in  Gaul,  over  Avhom 
he  presided,  wrote  an  epistle  in  which  he  maintains 
the  duty  of  celebrating  the  mystery  of  the  resurrection 
of  our  Lord  only  on  the  day  of  the  Lord.  He  becom- 
ingly also  admonishes  Victor  not  to  cut  off  whole 
churches  of  God  who  observed  the  tradition  of  an  an- 
cient custom."  Irenfcus  endeavored  to  show  to  Victor 
that  differences  in  practice,  of  Avhich  he  gives  divers  ex- 
amples, are  not  inconsistent  with  Unity  of  Faith.  "And 
when,"  adds  Eusebius,  "  the  blessed  Polycarp  went  to 
Rome  in  the  time  of  Anicetus,  and  they  had  a  little 
difference  among  themselves  likewise  respecting  other 
matters,  they  immediately  were  reconciled,  not  disputing 
much  with  one  another  on  this  head.     For  neither  could 


60  THE   PAPACY. 

Anicetus  persuade  Polycavp  not  to  observe  it,  because 
he  liad  always  observed  it"  [a  certain  custom]  "  with 
John  the  disci])le  of  our  Lord,  and  the  rest  of  the  Apos- 
tles with  whom  he  associated  ;  and  neither  did  Polycarp 
persuade  Anicetus  to  observe,  who  said  that  he  was 
bound  to  maintain  the  practice  of  the  presbyters  before 
liim.  Which  thing  being  so,  they  communed  with  each 
other ;  and  in  the  church  Anicetus  yielded  to  Polyq^rp 
the  office  of  consecrating."  And  thus,  though  following 
different  usages,  all  remained  in  the  communion  of  the 
Church.  "  And  not  only  to  Victor,  but  likewise  to  the 
most  of  the  other  rulers  of  the  churches,  he  sent  letters 
of  exhortation  on  the  agitated  question."* 

Thus  Victor  could  not,  of  his  oicn  authority,  cut  off 
from  the  Church,  in  fact,  those  whom  he  had  declared 
excommunicate  ;  the  other  Bishops  resisted  him  vigor- 
ously, and  St.  Irenaeus,  the  great  divine  of  the  age,  made 
war  in  his  letters  upon  those  which  Victor  had  written 
to  provoke  the  schism. 

This  discussion,  invoked  by  the  partisans  of  Papal 
pretensions  in  their  favor,  falls  back  upon  them  with  all 
its  weight,  and  with  a  force  that  can  not  in  good  faith 
be  contested. 

Anicetus  did  not  invoke  his  authority  against  Poly- 
carp, nor  did  Victor  against  Iren»us  and  the  other 
Bishops.  Polycarp  and  Irena^us  reasoned  and  wrote  as 
equals  of  the  Bishop  of  Rome  in  Episcopal  authority, 
and  recognized  but  one  rule — ancient  tradition. 

IIow  were  the  Churches  reunited  in  a  common  prac- 
tice? Eusebius  thus  relates  that  happy  result,  which 
certainly  was  not  due  to  the  Bishop  of  Rome  :f 

"  The  Bishops,  indeed,  of  Palestine,  Narcissus  and 
Theophilus,  and  Cassius  with  them,  the  Bishop  of  the 
Church  at  Tyre,  and  Clarus  of  Ptolemais,  and  those  that 

*  Euseb.  Eccl.  Hist.  Book  V.  chap.  xxiv. 
t  Euseb.  Eccl.  Hist.  Look  V.  chap.  xxv. 


THE   PAPACY.  61 

came  together  with  them,  having  advanced  many  things 
respecting  the  tradition  that  had  been  handed  down  to 
them  by  succession  from  the  Apostles,  regarding  the 
Passover,  at  the  close  of  tlie  epistle  use  these  words : 
'  Endeavor  to  send  copies  of  the  epistle  through  all  tlie 
Church,  that  we  may  not  give  occasion  to  those  whose 
minds  are  easily  led  astray.  But  Ave  inform  you  also, 
that  they  observe  tlie  same  day  at  Alexandria  which  we 
also  do  ;  for  letters  have  been  sent  by  us  to  them  and 
from  them  to  us,  so  that  we  celebrate  the  holy  season 
with  one  mind  and  at  one  time.'  " 

Nevertheless,  many  Churches  preserved  the  tradition 
of  the  Churches  of  Smyrna  and  Ephesus,  and  were  not 
on  that  account  regarded  as  schismatics,  although  Victor 
liad  separated  himself  froni  their  communion. 

The  partisans  of  the  Papal  system  attach  much  im- 
portance to  the  influence  exercised  by  the  Bishop  of 
Pome  in  the  question  of  Easter  and  some  other  matters: 
they  transform  that  influence  into  authority.  This  is  an 
untenable  paralogism.  It  is  not  to  be  wondered  at  that 
the  Bishop  of  Rome  should  have  enjoyed  from  the  first 
a  high  influence  in  religious  questions  ;  for  he  filled  the 
first  See  of  the  West,  and  as  Bishop  of  the  Capital  of 
the  Empire,  he  was  the  natural  link  between  East  and 
West.  It  was  then  understood  that  the  Catholic  Church 
was  not  exclusively  in  any  country  ;  that  the  East  pos- 
sessed no  more  universal  authority  than  the  West. 
This  is  why  certain  heretics,  born  and  condemned  in  the 
East,  sought  protection  in  the  West,  and  above  all  at 
Pome,  its  representative.  Thus  it  is,  that  even  some 
saints— as  Polycarp  of  Smyrna— Avent  themselves  to 
Pome  to  confer  Avith  the  Bishop  of  that  city  upon 
religious  questions. 

But  it  is  not  possible  conscientiously  to  study  these 
facts  from  reliable  documents  Avithout  eliciting  this 
truth :  that  the  influence  of  the  Bishop  of  Rome  did  not 


62 


THE   PAPACY. 


arise  in  an  universal  authority — that  it  did  not  even 
have  its  source  in  an  authority  recognized  by  all  the 
Western  Churches,  but  was  simply  derived  from  the  im- 
portance of  his  See. 

Rome  was  the  centre  of  all  communications  between 
different  parts  of  the  Empire.  The  faithful  crowded 
thither  from  all  quarters — whether  for  political  business 
or  private  interests — and  thus  her  testimony  as  an  Apos- 
tolic Church  was  strengthened  by  the  faithful  who 
came  thither  from  all  parts  of  tlie  world,  bringing  the 
witness  of  all  the  Churches  to  which  they  severally  be- 
longed. 

Such  is  the  sense  of  a  passage  of  St.  Ircnseus,  of  which 
the  Roman  theologians  have  made  the  strangest  mis- 
use.* This  great  theologian,  attacking  the  heretics  who 
sought  to  corrupt  the  faithful  at  Rome,  establishes 
against  them  the  Catholic  rule  of  faith,  preserved  every- 
where and  ahcays.  "  But,"  he  adds,  "  as  it  would  be 
very  tedious  to  enumerate  in  such  a  work  the  succession 
of  all  the  Churches,  Ave  will  trace  that  of  the  very  great 
and  very  ancient  Church  and  known  of  all,  which  was 
founded  and  established  at  Rome  by  the  two  very  glo- 
rious Apostles,  Peter  and  Paul ;  which  possesses  a  tra- 
dition that  comes  from  the  Apostles  as  much  as  the 
Faith  declared  to  men,  and  which  has  transmitted  it  to 
us  through  the  succession  of  her  Bishops ;  by  that,  we 
confound  all  those  who  in  any  manner  whatsoever,  either 
through  blindness  or  bad  intention,  do  not  gather  Avhere 
they  should ;  for  every  Church,  that  is  to  say,  the 
faithful  Avho  are  from  all  places,  are  obliged  to  go  to- 
ward that  Church,  because  of  the  most  powerful  prin- 
cipality. In  this  Church,  the  tradition  of  the  Apostles 
has  been  preserved  by  those  who  arc  of  all  coun- 
tries."! 

•  St.  Irjeneus,  In  Useres.    Lib.  III.  cap.  iii. 

t  We  must  quote  the  text  of  St.  Ireajeus,  that  it  may  be  compared  with  our  trans- 


TEE   PAPACY.  63 

The  Romisli  theologians  choose  a  bad  translation  of 
this  passage,  in  order  to  find  in  it  an  argument  in  favor 
of  the  Papal  sovereignty.  Instead  of  saying  that  the  faith- 
ful of  the  whole  world  v^^ere  obliged  to  go  to  Rome,  be- 
cause it  was  the  Capital  of  the  Empire,  the  seat  of  gov- 
ernment, and  the  centre  of  all  business,  civil  and  politi- 
cal, they  translate  convenire  ad  by  the  words,  to  agree 
with — which  is  a  misinterpretation  ;  they  make  poten- 
tiorem  priyicipalitatem  refer  to  the  Church  of  Rome,  and 
they  see  in  this  its  p>rhnacy^  whereas  these  Avords  are 
only  used  in  a  general  manner,  and  nothing  indicates 
that  they  do  not  solely  designate  the  capital  and  princi- 
pal city  of  the  Empire.  Again,  they  translate,  maximm, 
antiqnissimce,  by  greatest  and  most  ancient,  without  re- 
flecting that  they  thus  attribute  to  St.  Irenseus  an  asser- 
tion manifestly  false ;  for,  granting  that  the  Church  of 
Rome  was  the  greatest  of  her  day,  she  could  not  cer- 
tainly be  called  the  most  ancient — every  one  knew  that 
a  great  number  of  churches  had  been  founded  in  the 
East  before  that  of  Rome.  Moreover,  their  translation 
does  not  make  the  author  say  in  conclusion,  that  the 
Apostolic  tradition  has  oeen  preserved  at  Rome,  by 
those  who  were  of  all  countries — {ab  his  qui  sunt 
tmdique,)  as  the  text  requires,  but  like  Pius  IX.,  in  his 
Encyclical  Letter  to  the  Christians  of  the  East,  '■'■  Iti 
all  that  the  faithful  believe,"  not  reflecting  that  this  is  a 
misconstruction,  and  that  they  are  thus  attributing  non- 
sense to  the  good  Father. 

In  the  text  as  we  render  it  all  things  hang  together. 

lation,  "  Quoniam  valde  longum  est,  in  hoc,  tali  volumine  omnium  ecclesiarum 
enumerare  successiones  ;  maxim(B  et  antiquissimae,  et  omnibus  cognilae,  a  glo- 
riosissimis  diiobus  apostolis  Petro  et  Paullo,  RoniEe  fundatte  et  constitutae  Ecclesiae, 
earn  quam  habet  ab  Apostolis  Traditionem  et  annunciatam  hominibus  fidem,  per  suc- 
cessiones Episcoporum  pervenientera  usque  ad  nos,  indicantes  confundimus  omnes 
eo3,  qui  quoquomodo,  vel  per  ccccitatem  et  malara  sententiara  prseterquam  oportet 
coUigunt.  Ad  banc  enim  Ecclesiam,  propter  potentiorem.  principalitatem,  ne- 
cesse  est  omnem  convenire  ecclesiam,  hoc  est  eos,  qui  sunt  undique  fideles ;  in 
qua  semper  ab  his  qui  aunt  undique,con8ervata  eat  ea,qiKZ  est  ab  Apostolis, Tra- 
ditio." 


64  THE   PAPACY. 

St.  Irenseus  after  having  established  that  only  the  U7ii- 
versal  Faith  should  be  received,  points  out  to  the  here- 
tics of  that  city  the  Church  of  Rome,  as  offering  to  them 
an  evidence  the  more  convincing  that  Apostolic  tradi- 
tion had  been  there  preserved  by  the  faithful  of  the 
Avhole  ^vorId. 

How  then  could  St.  Irenajus,  "whose  purpose  it  is  to 
give  the  universal  Faith  as  the  rule  for  private  belief, 
and  "who  enlarges  precisely  upon  this  point  in  the  chap- 
ter from  which  the  text  is  taken,  logically  say  what  is 
attributed  to  him  by  the  Popes  and  their  theologians  ? 
He  would  then  have  argued  thus  :  It  is  necessary  to 
adopt  as  the  rule  the  belief  of  all  the  churches  ;  but  it 
sitjffices  to  appeal  to  that  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  to 
which  there  must  be  uniformity  and  submission,  because 
of  her  primacy.  St.  Irenieus  never  expressed  so  unrea- 
sonable an  opinion.  He  lays  down  as  a  principle  the 
universal  Faith  as  a  rule,  and  he  points  out  the  Faith 
of  the  Church  of  Rome  as  true — thanks  to  the  concourse 
of  the  faithful  who  assembled  there  from  all  parts,  and 
who  thus  preserved  there  the  Apostolic  tradition.  How 
did  they  preserve  it  ?  Because  tliey  would  have  pro- 
tes'ted  against  any  change  in  the  traditions  of  their  own 
churclies,  to  which  they  were  witnesses  at  Rome.  St. 
IrenoBus  does  not  give  the  pretended  Divine  authority 
of  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  as  the  principle  of  the  preserva- 
tion of  tradition  in  the  Church  of  that  city — but  logic- 
ally, he  attributes  that  preservation  to  the  faithful  of 
other  Churches  who  controlled  her  traditions  by  those 
of  their  own  Churches,  and  who  thus  formed  an  invin- 
cible obstacle  to  innovation. 

It  was  natural  that  the  Bishop  of  the  Capital  of  the 
Empire,  precisely  because  of  the  faithful  who  there 
gathered  from  all  parts,  should  acquire  a  great  influence 
in  religious  matters,  and  even  occasionally  take  the  lead. 
But  all  the  monuments,  as  also  the  circumstances  attend- 


THE   PAPACY.  G5 

ing  those  transactions  in  wliicli  he  took  part,  show  that 
1)0  enjoyed  no  authority  superior  to  tliat  of  the  other 
liisiiops. 

It  is  clear  that  all  discussion  relative  to  this  text  of 
St.  Irenasus  turns  upon  the  sense  to  be  given  to  the  word 
cfnivenire.  If  this  word  signifies  to  agree  icith,  we  must 
conclude  that  the  venerable  writer  thought  all  must 
necessarily  agree  with  the  Church  of  Rome,  and  with- 
out tliat  it  is  impossible  to  be  in  the  unity.  If  the  word 
ineans  to  go^  all  the  Ulti'amontane  scaffolding  will  fall 
of  itself,  for  it  can  not  reasonably  be  affii'med  that  all 
the  faithful  must  of  necessity  go  to  Rome,  even  though 
the  Church  established  in  that  city  should  be  the  first 
and  })rincipal  Church,  the  centre  of  Unity.  It  follows 
that  the  sense  of  this  word  should  be  determined  in  so 
evident  a  manner  that  there  remain  no  doubt  in  respect 
to  it. 

We  have  already  remarked  that  the  preposition  ad 
determined  the  sense  of  it — we  can  add  many  others  to 
this  already  conclusive  proof. 

If  we  possessed  the  Greek  text  of  the  passage  in 
question,  there  is  no  doubt  there  would  not  be  the  un- 
certainty resulting  from  the  Latin  word.  But  Eusebiua 
and  Nicephorus  have  preserved  for  us  other  fragments 
of  the  primitive  text.  Now  it  happens  that  in  these 
fragments  the  good  Father  uses  expressions  which  the 
Latin  translator  has  rendered  by  the  word  convenire., 
and  which  have  no  meaning  except  just  this  one  of  go- 
ing— whether  together  or  separately. 

In  the  second  book,  chapter  xxii.,  (Migne's  edition, 
col.  785,)  St,  IrensDus  says :  "  All  the  priests  who  have 
gone  to  Asia,  to  John,  disciple  of  the  Lord,  bear  witness 
to  it." 

Greek  text :  koI  iravreg  ol  TTpeatvTEpoL  fiaprvpovotv,  ol 
Kara  ttjv  'Acrmv  'Iwocvvg  roi  tov  Kvpiov  fiadTjTy  ovfi6e6Xi]- 
Koreg. 


66  THE   PAPACY, 

Latin  translation :  "  Oranes  seniores  testantur  qui  in 
Asia  apud  Joannem  discipulum  Domini  convenerunV* 

In  the  third  book,  21st  chapter,  (Migne's  edition,  col. 
947,)  speaking  of  the  Septuagint  interpreters  of  Scrip- 
ture, St.  Irenaeus  says  of  them,  "  Being  assembled  at 
Ptolemy's  house,"  etc. 

In  Greek :  "  'LvveXOovriov  61  avriov  em  to  avro  napa 
TU)  nroAe/iiaia)." 

The  Latin  translator  renders  this  "  Convenientibus 
autem  ipsis  in  unum  apud  Ptolemaeum." 

The  Benedictine  Massuet,  editor  of  St.  Irenaeus's 
Avorke,  pretends  that  St.  Irenajus  must  have  used  in  the 
text  in  question,  the  words  avfxtaiveiv  npog  rrjv  rdv 
F(i)fiatu)v  'EKKXTjaiav.  And  he  pretends  that  ov/^idaivecv 
TTpos  Tiva  is  the  same  thing  as  av[i6aivttv  rivi. 

Although  this  opinion  were  unimpeachable,  such  eru- 
dition would  be  worth  nothing,  for  we  must  content 
ourselves  with  supposing  that  the  good  father  has  used 
the  word  ovuCaivEcv.  It  would  seem  to  us  more  natural 
and  logical  to  look  for  the  unknown  word  among  the 
known  words,  which  the  translator  renders  convenire. 
Now  from  that  study,  it  should  appear  that  St.  Irenaeus 
did  not  use  ovfxOaiveiv,  but  avfi6e6Xr]K6Teg,  which  has 
the  sense  of  a  running  together  toward  a  place^  or  of 
avveXOovres,  which  has  an  analogous  signification,  since, 
in  the  Greek  texts  that  have  been  preserved,  he  has  used 
these  words  to  express  the  idea  for  which  the  trans- 
lator used  convenire. 

In  general,  the  translator  of  St.  Irenaeus  gives  to  the 
word  convenire  the  sense  of  to  go,  and  not  to  agree  with. 
Why  then  give  it  this  sense  in  the  famous  text  in  ques- 
tion, when  in  the  text  itself  the  preposition  ad  gives  the 
idea  of  direction  toward  a  place,  and  the  adverb  undique 
gives  that  of  departure  from  all  places  other  than  Rome 
where  the  faithful  were  found  ? 

Nothing  is  wanting  to  prove  that  it  is  impossible  to 


2 HE   PAPACY.  67 

give  to  the  words  of  St.  Irenaeus  the  sense  attributed  to 
them  by  the  Romish  theologians.  The  good  father  then 
has  simply  said  that,  the  concourse  of  Believers  from  all 
countries,  drawn  to  Rome  by  the  necessities  of  their  bu- 
siness, because  that  city  teas  the  first  and  most  powerful 
of  the  Empire,  contributed  to  preserve  there  the  Apostolic 
tradition,  because  those  Believers  carried  there  the  Faith 
of  the  Churches  to  which  they  belonged. 

It  is  certain  that  Rome,  in  her  position  as  an  Aposto- 
lic Church,  had  a  very  great  authority  during  the  first 
centuries,  and  TertuUian  is  right  in  calling  her  as  a  wit- 
ness against  the  heretic  to  whom  he  said,  "  Thou  hast 
Rome,  whose  authority  is  close  at  hand.  Happy  Church ! 
to  whom  the  Apostles  gave  all  the  doctrine  with  their 
blood  !"  (De  Prascrip.  c.  xxxvi.)  But  cannot  an  Apos- 
tolic Church  bear  loitness  to  the  Faith  against  heresy 
without  enjoying  universal  and  diviqe  authority? 

St.  Cyprian  was  right  in  calling  the  Church  of  Rome, 
'■'■  the  chair  of  Peter  ;  the  principal  Church,  from  whence 
sacerdotal  unity  emanated."  (St.  Cyp.  55th  epis.  to 
Cornelius.)  But  for  all  that,  did  be  pretend  that  the 
Bishop  enjoyed  authority  by  Divine  right  ?  He  believed 
it  so  little,  that  in  his  Treatise  upon  the  Unity  of  the 
Church,  he  understands  by  the  ''chair  of  Peter,'"  the 
entire  Episcopate,  he  regards  St.  Peter  as  the  equal  of 
the  other  Apostles  and  denies  his  primacy,  he  makes  St. 
Peter  to  be  the  simple  type  of  the  unity  of  the  Apostolic 
College.*  Therefore,  it  is  in  a  limited  sense  that  he  calls 
the  Church  of  Rome  the  chair  of  Peter ;  he  makes  her 
the  pri7icipal  Church— but  that  was  Vifact  resulting  from 
her  exterior  importance.  She  was  the  source  of  Sacer- 
dotal Unity  in  this  sense  that  Peter  was  the  sign  and 
type  of  the  unity  of  the  Apostolic  College.  To  give  any 
other  sense  to  the  text  from  the  letter  of  St.  Cyprian  to 

*  Further  on  will  be  found  entire  the  texts  of  St.  Cyprian  and  TertulllMl. 


68  THE   PAPACY. 

Cornelius  •would  be  to  contradict  the  Treatise  on  the 
ITnity  of  the  Church,  to  attribute  to  St.  Cyprian  two 
contradictory  doctrines,  and  consequently  to  take  from 
liim  all  logic  and  all  authority. 

Those  who  have  given  such  high  importance  to  the 
text  of  St.  Cyprian,  taken  from  his  letter  to  Cornelius, 
have  forgotten  another  that  so  well  explains  it  that  it 
is  difficult  to  understand  how  they  have  omitted  it.  It 
is  that  in  which  he  declares  that,  "  Rome  should  precede 
Carthage,  because  of  its  great  size — -pro  magnitudine 
sua*''''  This  doctrine  agrees  Avith  that  of  St,  Irena^us 
and  the  other  Fathers,  who  have  never  mentioned  any 
divine  prerogative  with  which  the  Church  of  Rome  had 
been  favored. 

St.  Optatus,  St.  Jerome,  St.  Augustine,  and  many 
other  Western  Fathers  have  praised  the  Church  of  Rome 
as  an  Apostolic  Church,  and  have  attached  a  high  im- 
portance to  her  testimony  in  questions  of  faith.  But 
not  one  of  them  ascribes  to  her  any  such  doctrinal  au- 
thority that  her  testimony  would  o*"  itself  be  sufficient 
to  -determine  questions  under  discussion.  It  must  even 
be  remarked  that  St.  Augustine  sets  up  the  authority 
of  the  Oriental  churches  against  the  Donatists,  and 
does  not  mention  that  of  Rome,  although  she  was  the 
Apostolic  Church  of  the  West.  St.  Irenteus  would  be 
the  only  one  to  sustain  that  doctrine,  if  we  should  re- 
ceive his  text  as  translated  by  the  Romish  theologians. 

But  we  have  seen  that  this  interpretation  is  false,  and 
that  he  has  attributed  to  the  testimony  of  the  Church 
of  Rome  a  great  authority  in  this  sense  only :  that  it 
had  received  the  Apostolic  tradition,  and,  thanks  to  the 
Believers  who  congregated  there  from  all  parts,  that  tra- 
dition had  been  preserved  pure  unto  his  times.  There- 
fore, it  was  not  because  the  Church  of  Rome  was  the 

*  Cypr.  Ep.  69  ad  Cornet 


THE  PAPACY.  69 

principal,  the  first,  the  most  powerful  in  Christendom 
that  her  testimony  was  chiefly  valuable,  but  hecav^e  of 
the  Believers  from  other  churches,  who  strengthened  it 
by  their  adherence. 

When  Constantinople  had  become  the  capital  of  the 
Roman  Empire,  St.  Gregory  Nazienzen  said  of  that 
Church,  what  St.  Irenaeus  had  said  of  that  of  Rome,  and 
with  still  more  formal  expressions.  "  This  city,"  said 
he,  "  is  the  eye  of  the  world.  The  most  distant  nations 
press  toward  her  from  all  parts,  and  they  draw  from  her 
as  from  a  spring  the  principles  of  the  Faith."  (Greg. 
Naz.  42d  dis.,  §10,  col..  470,  Migne's  edit.)  The  Latin 
translation  of  St.  Gregory,  like  that  of  St.  Irenaeus,  em- 
ploys the  word  convenire  to  express  the  crowding  of 
people  toward  Constantinople.  Must  we  give  to  it  the 
sense  of  agreeing  xoith,  because  this  Father  calls  Con- 
stantinople not  only  a  powerful  and  principal  Church — 
but  the  eye  of  the  world,  source  of  faith  ? 

The  ninth  canon  of  the  Council  of  Antioch  held  in 
341,  will  of  itself  be  suflicient  to  determine  the  sense  of 
the  text  of  St.  Irenaeus.  The  canon  reads :  "  Let  the 
bishops  established  in  each  province  know  that  to  the 
bishop  of  the  metropolitan  city  is  confided  the  care  of 
the  whole  province,  because  all  those  who  have  business 
come  to  the  metropolis  from  all  parts.  Therefore  it  has 
appeared  advisable  to  grant  a  superior  honor  to  him." 

If  the  faithful  were  drawn  to  a  mere  metropolis  to 
transact  their  business,  how  much  more  to  the  capital  of 
the  empire,  which  was  for  them  a  necessary  centre,  and 
in  which  they  must  meet  from  all  parts  of  the  empire ! 
Such  is  the  fact  established  by  St.  Irenaeus,  and  from  it 
he  concludes  that  the  witness  of  the  Church  of  Rome 
should  suffice  to  confound  heretics. 

Finally  let  us  remark,  that  the  chapter  of  the  learned 
Father  only  relates  to  the  heretics  of  Rome,  for  whom 
he  destined  the  book ;  and  that  will  convince  us,  that  it 


70  THE  PAPACY. 

is  a  strange  abuse  of  the  words  to  give  them  an  abso- 
lute sense,  making  them  relate  to  heretics  in  general, 
and  to  all  ages ;  for  he  only  affirmed  that  the  Roman 
Church  had  preserved  her  apostolic  tradition  pure  to  his 
time,  and  not,  that  she  would  always  so  preserve  it. 

The  discussion  upon  the  baptism  of  heretics  throws 
further  light  upon  the  question  we  are  examining. 

From  all  antiquity,*  it  was  customary  merely  to  im- 
pose hands  upon  those  who  had  fallen  into  heresy,  and 
wished  to  reenter  the  bosom  of  the  Church,  In  the  third 
century  a  grave  discussion  arose  upon  this  subject.  St. 
Cyprian,  Bishop  of  Carthage,  was  the  first  in  the  West 
who  maintained  that  baptism  should  be  readministered 
to  converted  heretics.  Dionysius,  Bishop  of  Alexandria, 
who  at  that  time  exerted  a  great  influence  throughout 
the  Church  by  reason  of  his  holiness,  his  zeal  and  learn- 
ing, declared  himself  openly  for  the  Bishop  of  Carthage, 
and  wrote  upon  the  subject  to  Stephen,  Bishop  of  Rome. 
Stephen,  persuaded  that  no  change  should  be  made  in  a 
tradition  handed  down  from  time  immemorial,  was  very 
much  grieved  at  an  opinion  which  he  looked  upon  as  an 
innovation.  St.  Cyprian  admitted  the  existence  of  the 
custom,  but  he  contended  that  it  was  not  lawful.  He 
even  took  advantage  of  a  contrary  doctrine  that  he 
said  his  church  had  preserved,  and  according  to  which 
baptism  administered  by  heretics  was  regarded  as  null. 

St.  Cyprian,  having  assembled  several  councils  of  bish- 
ops of  the  province  of  Africa,  sent  their  transactions  to 
Stephen,  with  a  letter,f  in  Avhich  he  said,  "  I  believe  that 
I  should  write  to  you  upon  a  subject  that  concerns  the 
imity  and  dignity  of  the  Church  Catholic,  and  should 
confer  upon  it,  with  a  man  so  grave  and  so  wise  as 
youP 

It  is  not,  as  one  may  see,  to  a  superior  that  he  ad- 

*  Euseb.  EccL  Hist.  Book  VII.  chaps,  ii.  and  lU. 
t  Cyprian,  Epp.  72,  73,  ad.  Steph. 


THE  PAPACY.  71 

dresses  himself,  but  to  an  equal  whose  gravity  and  wis- 
dom he  esteems.  He  even  makes  him  understand,  that 
he  is  in  error  in  supporting  the  custom  of  the  Roman 
Church.  He  says  :*  "  I  am  persuaded  that  your  faith 
and  piety  make  that  which  conforms  to  the  truth  agree- 
able to  you.  However,  we  know  there  are  some  who 
will  not  abandon  sentiments  with  which  they  have  been 
once  imbued,  and  who  maintain  particular  usages,  with- 
out interrupting  harmony  among  the  Bishops.  In  such 
cases  we  do  no  violence  and  impose  no  law  upon  any 
one." 

St.  Cyprian  does  not  wish  here  to  impose  his  opinion 
upon  Stephen ;  but  he  blames  him  for  preserving  that 
which  he  regards  as  a  prejudice  contrary  to  the  truth. 

Stephen  rejected  the  doctrine  of  St.  Cyprian  ;  he  fur- 
ther declared  that  he  would  not  even  communicate  with 
him,  nor  with  the  Bishops  of  Cilicia,  of  Cappadocia  and 
Galatia,  who  followed  the  same  doctrine.  Dionysius  of 
Alexandria!  wrote  to  him,  to  exhort  him  to  peace  ;  tell- 
ing him  that  all  the  Oriental  churches,  although  divided 
in  their  opinions,  on  the  doctrines  of  Novatus,  were  in 
most  perfect  union,  and  rejoicing  in  that  happy  result. 
He  counselled  him  not  to  trouble  again  the  Church  in 
regard  to  the  baptism  of  heretics. 

At  this  stage  of  the  matter  Xystus  succeeded  Stephen. 
Dionysius  of  Alexandria  hastened  to  write  to  him  to  dis- 
suade him  from  following  the  way  of  Stephen.  He 
says  of  this  bishop:  J  "He  had  written  before  respecting 
Helenus  and  Firmilian,  and  all  those  from  Cilicia  and 
Cappadocia  and  Galatia  and  all  the  nations  adjoining, 
that  he  would  not  have  communion  with  them  on  this 
account,  because  they,  said  he,  rebaptized  the  heretics ; 
and  behold,  I  pi-ay  you,  the  importance  of  the  matter ; 

♦  Ibid. 

+  Letter  of  St.  Dionysius  of  Alex.    In  Euseblus,  Eccl.  Hist.  Book  VU.  chap,  v. 

X  Letter  of  St.  Dion,  of  Alex.    EusebiuB,  EccU  Hist.  Book  VII.  chap.  v. 


12  THE  PAPACY. 

for  in  reality,  as  I  have  ascertained,  decrees  have  been 
passed  in  the  greatest  councils  of  the  Bishops,  that  those 
■\vho  come  from  the  heretics  are  first  to  be  instructed, 
and  then  are  to  be  washed  and  purified  from  the  filth  of 
their  old  and  impure  leaven.  And  respecting  all  these 
things  I  have  sent  letters  entreating  them." 

St.  Dionysius  did  not  see  an  act  of  authority  in  the 
letter  of  Stephen,  but  an  intervention  that  might  throw 
a  new  germ  of  trouble  in  the  Church ;  it  was  on  this 
ground  that  he  wished  to  check  him.  Instead  of  troub- 
ling the  Church,  Stephen  would  have  pacified  it,  if  a 
universal  authority  had  been  recognized  in  him.  This 
consideration  sufiices  to  establish  the  entu'cly  private 
and  personal  character  of  his  letter. 

"What  had  been  the  result  ?  Was  he  obeyed,  as  he 
would  have  been  had  the  Bishop  of  Rome  had  supreme 
authority?  Was  his  separation  regarded  as  breaking 
the  unity  of  the  Church ?  Assuredly  not!  St.  Diony- 
sius of  Alexandria  acted  in  this  afiair  as  St.  Irenaeus  did 
in  the  question  of  Easter ;  he  declared  openly  for  those 
who  difibred  with  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  while  to  the 
latter  he  addressed  earnest  prayers  for  the  peace  of  the 
Church.  St.  Cyprian  assembled  a  new  council  of  the 
bishops  of  Africa,  who  confirmed  their  first  opinion ;  and 
he  consulted  with  Firmilian,  in  order  to  oppose  the  en- 
tire Church  against  the  Roman  Church  in  this  question. 

Fii'milian  answered  St.  Cyprian  in  a  letter,  that  will 
show  the  belief  of  Oriental  Christendom  touching  the 
authority  of  the  Bishops  of  Rome.* 

"  Firmilian  to  his  brother  in  the  Lord,  Cyprian,  greet- 
ing : 

"  We  have  received  by  our  very  dear  deacon  Roga- 
tian,  whom  you  have  sent  to  us,  the  letter,  beloved  bro- 
ther, that  you  have  written  us;  and  we  have  rendered 

•  Firmilian  to  St.  Cyp.  among  the  letters  of  the  latter.    Seventy-fifth  letter.    Edit 
Baluze— reviewed  by  the  Benedictines. 


THE   PAPACY.  7S 

thanks  to  God,  that  while  being  thus  separated  in  body, 
we  are  united  in  spirit,  as  if  we  were  dwelling,  not  only 
in  the  same  country,  but  in  the  same  house ;  which  may 
well  be  said,  since  the  spiritual  house  of  God  is  one.  In  the 
last  days,  says  the  prophet,  the  mountain  of  the  Lord, 
and  the  house  of  God,  placed  on  the  summit  of  the 
mountains,  shall  be  manifested.  Reunited  in  this  house, 
we  there  enjoy  the  bliss  of  unity.  It  is  Avhat  the  psalm- 
ist asks  of  the  Lord — to  dwell  in  the  hotise  of  the  Lord 
all  the  days  of  his  life.  Whence,  and  from  another 
passage,  appears  the  happiness  of  the  saints  in  being 
united:  Oh/  hoic  good  and  pleasant  a  thing  it  is /or 
brethren  to  live  together  in  imity.  In  fact,  union, 
peace,  and  concord  confer  a  very  great  felicity,  not  only 
to  faithful  men  who  know  the  truth,  but  to  the  angels 
of  heaven  themselves,  who  according  to  the  divine  word 
experience  joy  when  a  sinner  repents  and  returns  to  the 
bond  of  unity.  This  would  not  be  said  of  the  angels  who 
inhabit  heaven,  if  they  also  were  not  united  to  us,  who 
rejoice  over  our  union ;  as,  on  the  other  hand,  they  are 
grieved  when  they  see  hearts  and  minds  in  division,  not 
only  as  though  they  did  not  invoke  the  same  and  only 
God,  but  as  if  they  would  not  speak  to  or  hear  each 
other.  But  in  this  we  may  be  grateful  to  Stephen ;  for, 
by  his  violence,  he  has  put  your  faith  and  wisdom  to 
trial ;  yet  if  ice  have  an  advantage  because  of  him,  it  is 
not  to  him  that  we  owe  it.  Truly,  Judas  for  his  perfidy 
and  treachery  which  he  so  ciiminally  employed  toward  his 
Saviour,  should  not  be  regarded  as  the  cause  of  the  great 
blessings  that  the  passion  of  the  Lord  procured  for  us,  in 
delivering  the  world  and  all  people.  But  for  the  present 
we  will  pass  over  what  Stephen  has  done,  fearing,  lest 
in  remembering  his  audacity  and  insolence,  we  experi- 
ence too  much  grief  at  his  bad  actions." 

This  preamble  of  Firmilian's  letter  demonstrates  that 
he  was  very  far  from  placing  the  centre  of  unity  in  the 


74  THE   PAPACY. 

pope.  In  his  eyes,  Stephen  was  but  a  bishop,  full  of  aw- 
dacity  and  insoleixce^  because  he  had  dared  to  separate 
himself  from  the  communion  of  those  who  had  another 
belief  frcftn  his  own  upon  the  question  of  the  baptism 
of  heretics ;  and  he  even  goes  so  far  as  to  compare  him 
to  Judas.  Nor  must  it  be  forgotten  that  Firmilian 
was  one  of  the  holiest  and  wisest  bishops  of  his  time. 

The  principle  of  unity  he  placed  in  God ;  he  says, 
"  As  it  is  but  one  and  the  same  Loi-d  that  dwells  in  us, 
he  joins  and  knits  together  his  own  among  themselves, 
by  the  bond  of  unity,  in  whatever  place  they  may  be." 

As  for  the  Church  of  Rome,  which  it  is  sought  to  im- 
pose uixnn  us  now  as  the  cetUi'e  of  unity,  he  thus  speaks 
of  her : 

"Those  who  are  at  Rome  do  not  observe  all  the 
things  which  were  given  at  the  beginning,  and  it  is  in 
vain  that  they  pretend  to  supjwrt  themselves  upon  the 
authority  of  the  apostles :  it  is  thus,  that,  u}X)n  the  day 
for  the  celebration  of  Easter,  and  upon  a  great  number 
of  other  mysteries  of  religion,  there  are  diversities  among 
them,  and  that  they  do  not  observe  all  that  is  observed 
at  Jerusalem  ;  likewise  in  other  provinces,  many  varieties 
are  encountered  according  to  the  diversity  of  places 
and  tongues ;  yet  they  arc  not  separated  for  all  that 
from  the  peace  and  unity  of  the  Church  Universal." 

The  Church  of  Jerusalem  was  the  model  church,  ac- 
cording to  Firmilian ;  she  was  the  mother  of  all  the  others, 
and  the  purest  type  after  which  all  the  others  should  form 
themselves.  As  for  the  Church  of  Rome,  she  could,  like 
any  other  private  church,  be  cut  off  from  unity.  This  is 
why  be  declared  so  energetically  against  Stephen,  who 
had  dared  to  break  peace  with  the  bishops  of  Africa ;  who 
slandered  the  Apostles  Peter  and  Paul,  by  prctend- 
ing  to  follow  their  traditions.  "  I  have  reason,"  he  said, 
*'  to  be  indignant  at  the  manifest  folly  of  Stephen,  who, 
on  the  one  hand,  glories  in  his  episcopal  seat,  and  pre- 


THE  PAPACY.  75 

tends  to  possess  the  succession  of  Peter,  upon  whom  the 
foundations  of  the  Church  were  placed,  and  who,  on  the 
other  hand,  introduces  other  stones,  [Pierres,)  and  con- 
structs new  buildings  for  other  churches,  by  asserting, 
upon  his  own  authority,  that  they  possess  the  ti'ue  bap- 
tism.    .     . 

"Stephen,  who  boasts  of  possessing  the  see  of  St. 
Peter  by  succession,  shows  no  zeal  against  the  here- 
tics. .  .  You,  Africans,  you  may  say  to  Stephen,  that 
having  known  the  truth,  you  have  rejected  the  custom 
of  error ;  but  for  us,  we  possess  at  the  same  time,  truth 
and  usage ;  we  oppose  our  custom  against  that  of  the 
Romans ;  our  usage  is  that  of  truth,  preserving,  since 
the  beginning,  that  which  Christ  and  the  Apostles  have 
given  to  us.  .  .  Yet  Stephen  does  not  blush  to  affirm, 
that  those  in  sin  carf  remit  sins,  as  though  the  waters 
of  life  could  be  found  in  the  house  of  the  dead.  "What  I 
dost  thou  not  fear  God's  judgment,  when  thou  showest 
thyself  favorable  to  heretics  against  the  Church !  But 
thou  art  worse  than  all  the  heretics ;  for  when  those 
among  them,  who  have  recognized  their  error,  come  to 
thee  to  receive  the  true  light  of  the  Church,  thou  then 
comest  in  aid  of  their  errors,  and  extingixishing  the  light 
of  the  truth  of  the  Church,  thou  gatherest  around  them 
the  darkness  of  the  night  of  heresy.  Dost  thou  not  un- 
derstand that  an  account  of  these  souls  will  be  demand- 
ed of  thee  in  the  day  of  judgment,  since  thou  hast  re- 
fused the  waters  of  the  Church  to  those  who  were  thirsty, 
and  hast  caused  the  death  of  those  who  wished  to  live  ? 
And  yet  thou  art  angered !  Look  at  thy  folly,  who 
darest  to  attack  those  who  fight  against  falsehood  for 
truth's  sake !  Who  is  it,  that  is  most  righteously  an- 
gry with  another?  Is  it  he  who  agrees  with  the 
enemies  of  God,  or  rather,  he,  who  for  the  truth  of  the 
Church,  declares  himself  against  those  who  agree  with 
the  enemies  of  God  ?  .  .  What  disputes,  what  discussions 


76  THE  PAPACY. 

thou  preparest  for  all  the  churches  of  the  world  !  What 
grievous  sin  thou  hast  committed  in  separating  thyself 
from  so  many  flocks  !  Thou  hast  killed  thyself;  do  not 
deceive  thyself ;  for  he  is  truly  schismatic  who  renounc- 
es the  communion  of  the  unity  of  the  Church  !  While 
thou  thinkest  that  all  others  are  separated  from  thee, 
it  is  thou  who  art  separated  from  all  others."  Thus 
Firmilian  speaks  to  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  and  no  one 
dreamed  of  taxing  him  with  wrong,  even  among  those 
who  differed  with  him  concerning  the  baptism  of  here- 
tics.* 

St.  Dionysius  of  Alexandria  withoiit  openly  taking  part 
against  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  endeavored  to  lead  him  to 
the  idea  of  rcbaptizing.  It  is  to  this  end  that  he  dis- 
plays his  doubts  in  regard  to  a  man  Avhom  he  had  ad- 
mitted to  the  communion  without  rebaptizing  him,  and 
who,  nevertheless,  scarcely  dared  to  participate  in  the 
body  of  the  Lord,  because  he  had  only  received  baptism 
among  the  heretics,  and  with  guilty  words  and  rites. 
"  Brother,"!  he  wrote  to  Xystus,  "  I  have  need  of  your 
counsel^  and  I  ask  your  opinion  on  an  affair  that  has 
presented  itself  to  me,  and  in  which,  indeed,  I  am  afraid 
I  may  be  deceived."  It  is  not  to  a  superior  he  addresses 
himself,  to  ask  a  decision,  but  to  an  equal,  to  a  brother, 

*  Some  Ultramontanes  have  contested  the  authenticity  of  Firmilian's  letter;  but 
the  most  learned  among  them  agree,  with  the  learned  of  all  the  schools,  to  regard  it 
as  authentic.  The  strongest  reason  that  Barruel  alleges  to  contest  its  authority, 
is  that  Firmilian  could  not  have  written  such  a  letter,  since,  according  to  St.  Dionysius 
of  Alexandria,  he  was  reconciled  to  the  pope  before  the  letter  «ould  have  been 
written. 

If  Barruel  had  been  a  little  more  learned,  he  had  linown  that  in  the  letter  of  St. 
Dionysius  of  Alexandria  to  Stephen,  the  letter  to  which  he  alludes,  he  does  not  say 
that  the  whole  church  was  in  peace  upon  the  subject  of  the  baptism  of  heretics,  since 
the  discussion  was  just  beginning ;  but  that  he  only  says,  Stephen  would  be  wrong  to 
trouble  the  church  by  this  discuss? ion,  when  she  was  in  the  enjoyment  of  peace  after 
the  troubles  created  by  Novatus.  The  other  pretended  proofs  of  Barruel  are  still 
more  feeble,  and  do  not  deserve  discussion.  We  only  say  that  he  has  displayed 
an  extraordinary  audacity  in  confronting  thus  the  most  illustrious  scholars  of  every 
school,  who  admit  this  letter  as  authentic,  without  any  dispute. 

t  Euseb.  Eccl.  Hist.  Book  VII.  chap.  be. 


THE  PAPACY.  77 

in  order  to  know  his  views,  that  he  may  himself  come 
to  a  determination.  We  ask  every  man  in  good  faith,  is 
it  thus  that  the  Bishop  of  Alexandria  would  have  writ- 
ten to  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  if  the  latter  had  enjoyed 
an  authority  universally  acknowledged,  to  terminate 
dogmatic  or  disciplinary  discussions  ? 

We  find  in  the  acts  of  the  last  council  of  St.  Cyprian 
a  very  significant  criticism  upon  the  i)retensions  which 
the  Bishop  of  Rome  had  begun  to  put  forth.  After 
having  asked  the  advice  of  his  colleagues,  he  speaks 
thus,  "Let  each  one  give  his  opinion  without  judging 
any  one  and  without  separating  from  the  communion 
those  who  are  not  of  his  opinion ;  for  none  of  us  sets 
himself  up  for  a  bishop  of  bishops,  nor  compels  his 
brethren  to  obey  him  by  means  vf  tyrannical  terror, 
every  bishop  having  full  liberty  and  complete  power ; 
as  he  cannot  be  judged  by  another,  neither  can  he  judge 
another.  Let  us  all  wait  the  judgment  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  who  alone  has  the  power  to  appoint  us  to 
the  government  of  his  Church  and  to  judge  our  conduct.* 

It  is  evident  that  St.  Cyprian  had  in  view  Stephen, 
Bishop  of  Rome,  who  had  dared  to  declare  those  out 
of  his  communion  who  thought  otherwise  than  he  did 
upon  the  baptism  of  heretics.  The  Roman  Theologians 
choose  to  consider  these  excommunications  by  the  Bish- 
ops of  Rome  as  sentences  which  separated  from  the 
Church  those  upon  whom  they  fell.  But  the  manner  in 
which  the  sentence  of  Victor  in  the  Easter  question  and 
that  of  Stephen  in  the  discussion  upon  the  baptism  were 
considered,  proves  that  they  were  only  regarded  as  per- 
sonal acts  of  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  and  had  no  other  efiect 
than  to  sever  the  relations  between  him  and  those  who 
did  not  share  his  way  of  thinking.  As  for  the  unity  of 
the  Church,  that  remained  intact,  for  the  very  simple 
reason  that  this  unity  did  not  consist  in  an  union  with 

*  Concil.  Garth.  St.  Cyprian,  pp.  829,  830,  Bened.  edit. 


78  THE  PAPACY. 

the  Bishop  of  Rome,  and  that  thojge  whom  he  separated 
from  his  communion  communicated  with  the  rest  of  the 
Church.  Those  only  were  considered  out  of  the  Church, 
upon  whom  excommunication  was  declared  by  the 
Church  itself  in  general  council,  or  in  particular  councils 
to  which  the  rest  of  the  Church  adhered. 

The  criticism  made  by  St.  Cyprian  upon  the  title  of 
bishop  of  bishops  leads  one  to  think  that  the  Bishop  of 
Rome  endeavoured  even  then  to  assume  it,  and  recalls  a 
remark  of  Tertullian.* 

This  learned  priest  of  Carthage  said  ironically  of  a 
Roman  bishop  whose  teaching  he  censured :  "  I  learn 
that  an  edict  has  been  given,  even  a  peremptory  edict, 
the  Sovereign  Pontiffs  that  is,  the  Bishop  of  Bishops 
has  said  :  '  I  remit  the  sins  of  impurity  and  of  fornica- 
tion to  those  who  do  penance.'  O  edict !  not  less  then 
can  be  done  than  to  ticket  it — Good  work.  But  where 
shall  such  an  edict  be  posted  ?  Surely,  I  think  upon  the 
doors  of  the  houses  of  prostitution.".  .  .  Tertullian 
equally  ridicules  the  titles  of  Pope  and  apostolic  which 
had  been  taken  by  the  Bishops  of  Rome.  Men  like 
Zephyrinus  and  Callistus  his  successor,  f  could  well 
appropriate  pompous  titles  that  thej'  did  not  deserve ; 
but  the  Church,  instead  of  recognizing  their  legitimacy, 
and  regarding  them  as  emanating  from  a  divine  right, 
censured  them  by  her  most  learned  doctors,  and  looked 
upon  them  as  the  evil  fruit  of  pride  and  ambition.  St. 
Cyprian  would  not  have  been  consistent  with  himself 


*  Tertull.  de  Pudicitla,  §  1. 

+  See  the  work  entitled  ^i7Mao<boiu.£va  upon  the  scandal  of  these  two  unworthy 
bishops,  which  with  justice  has  been  attributed  to  St.  Hippolytus,  Bishop  of  Ostia, 
or  to  the  learned  priest  Caius.  It  is  certain  at  any  rate  that  this  book  is  the  work 
of  a  writer  contemporary  with  the  events  recorded,  and  one  who  enjoyed  great 
authority  in  the  Roman  Church.  Tertullian  reproaches  a  bishop  of  Rome  with  hav- 
ing adopted,  owing  to  the  seductions  of  Praxeas,  the  heresy  of  the  Patripassians,  (Lib. 
adv.  Prax.  §  1.)  The  author  of  ii'koaoipovusva  attributes  this  heresy  to  Zephy- 
rinus and  to  Callistus,  Bishops  of  Rome  at  that  time.  He  did  not  believe,  it  is  evi- 
dent, in  their  inrallibillty. 


THE  PAPACY.  79 

if  he  had  submitted  and  declared  himself  in  favour  of 
the  pretensions  of  the  Bishops  of  Rome.  In  fact,  in  his 
Treatise  upon  Church  Unity,  he  positively  denies  the 
primacy  of  St.  Peter  himself;  he  makes  that  Apostle 
merely  to  be  the  type  of  unity,  which  resided  in  the 
apostolic  college  as  a  whole ;  and  by  succession  in  the 
whole  episcopal  body,  which  he  calls  the  see  of  Peter. 
It  is  only  by  a  series  of  the  strangest  of  distortions  that 
the  Roman  theologians  understand  by  this  last  expression 
the  see  of  Home.  They  can  not  give  such  a  sense  to  it 
without  completely  forgetting  the  rest  of  the  text  from 
which  this  is  taken.  We  will  give  it  as  an  example 
among  a  thousand  of  the  want  of  good  faith  of  the  parti- 
sans of  popery,  when  they  cite  from  ancient  traditions. 
After  mentioning  the  powers  promised  to  St.  Peter,  St. 
Cyprian  remarks  that  Jesus  Christ  promised  them  to 
him  alone,  though  they  were  to  be  given  to  all.  "  In 
order  to  show  forth  unity,"  he  says,  "the  Lord  has 
wished  that  unity  might  draw  its  origin  from  one  only.* 
The  OTHER  Apostles  certainly  were  just  what  Peter 
WAS,  having  the  same  honor  and  power  as  he.f  All 
are  shepherds,  and  the  flock  nourished  by  all  the  Apos- 
tles together  is  one,  in  order  that  the  Church  of  Christ 
may  appear  in  its  unity." 

The  see  of  Peter  in  St.  Cyprian's  idea,  is  the  author- 

•  Here  Is  the  explanation  of  the  passage,  of  which  we  have  already  spoken,  where 
St.  Cyprian  calls  the  Church  of  Rome  "  Source  qf  sacerdotal  unity.'" 

t  In  some  manuscripts,  In  this  place  It  has  been  added,  "  But  the  primacy  has 
been  given  to  Peter,  In  order  that  there  might  be  but  one  church  and  one  see.  Sed 
primatua  Petro  datur  ut  una  Ecclesia  et  cathedra  una  monstretur."  These 
words  could  be  explained  in  a  sense  not  Ultramontane,  by  that  which  precedes  in 
St.  Cyprian  upon  Peter— his  type  of  unity ;  but  It  is  useless  to  waste  time  In  ex- 
plaining an  Interpolated  text.  Thus  it  was  regarded  by  the  learned  Baluze,  who 
prepared  the  edition  of  the  works  of  St.  Cyprian,  publishtd  subsequently  by  the 
Benedictine  Don  Maran.  When  that  edition  was  published,  one  named  Masbaret, 
professor  at  the  Seminary  of  Angers,  obtained  authority  from  the  government  to 
reestablish  the  passage.  It  was  at  that  time  thought  desirable  not  to  oppose  Rome, 
and  the  passage  was  Inserted  by  means  of  a  card.  See  VHistoire  des  Capitulairea, 
In  which  notice  the  observations  of  Chlnlac  upon  the  Catalogue  of  the  Works  of 
Stephen  Baluze. 


80  THE    PAPACY. 

ity  of  the  apostolic  body,  and,  by  succession,  of  the  epis- 
copal body  ;  all  the  bishops  had  the  same  honour  and  the 
same  authority,  in  all  that  relates  to  their  order,  as  the 
Apostles  had  the  same  honor  and  authokity  as  Petkr. 

Since  St.  Cyprian  admits  this  principle,  how  has  it 
been  possible  to  misconstrue  some  of  his  expressions  as 
has  been  done  ?  Even  were  it  necessary  to  understand 
the  see  of  Peter  to  mean  the  see  of  Rome,  there  would 
follow  nothing  favorable  to  the  pi-etensions  of  the  bishop 
of  that  see,  since  as  bishop  he  would  possess  no  more 
honor,  no  more  authority  than  the  others ;  and,  as  St. 
Cyprian  ftirther  proves,  the  episcopate  is  one,  and  the 
bishops  possess  it  jointly  and  severally. 

But  the  Bishop  of  Caithage  calls  the  Church  of  Rome 
root  and  womb  of  the  CathoUc  Church.*  What  fol- 
lows if  such  expressions  were  generally  employed  in  his 
time  to  designate  all  the  apostolic  churches  ?  No  one 
denies  the  Church  of  Rome  was  founded  by  the  Apos- 
tles—  it  was  thus  a  root  of  the  Catholic  Church,  a 
mother  church  —  but  not  exclusively  tiik  root  —  the 
mother  of  the  Church.  In  fact,  Tertullian  calls  all  the 
apostolic  churches  wombs  and  originators  —  which 
means,  "  mothers  having  given  origin  to  others  ;"f  the 
Barae  divine  calls  Jerusalem — mother  of  religion,  matri- 
ceni  reUgionis.\  The  first  Council  of  Constantinople§  gave 
to  the  Church  of  Jerusalem,  the  title  of  mother  of  all 
the  churches.  In  Africa  the  title  of  matrix  or  m,other 
was  given  to  all  the  great  metropolitan  churches.  ||  A 
Galilean  bishop  of  the  fifth  century,  Avitus  of  Vienne, 
wrote  to  the  Patriarch  of  Jerusalem :  "  Your  apostolate 
exercises  a  primacy  granted  to  it  by  God  :  and  it  is  care- 
ful to  show  that  it  occupies  Si  principal  i>\a,c.e,  (principem 
locum)  in  the  Church  not  only  by  its  privileges,  but  by 

•  St.  Cyp.  letter  45  to  Comelius.  t  Tertul.  Praescrlpt,  c.  xxl. 

X  Tertul.  adv.  Miu-clonem,  Book  IV.  c.  xxxt.         §  Labbe,  Collect  des  Conclles. 
I  See  Conciles  d'Afrique.    Same  collection. 


THE    PAPACY.  81 

its  merits."*  Thus  it  is  not  surjirising  that  St.  Cyprian 
should  give  the  title  of  mother  church — root  of  the 
church  to  that  of  Rome,  which  had  given  birth  to  others, 
perhaps  even  in  Africa,  and  whose  origin  was  of  apostolic 
date.  Through  the  Apostles  she  was,  like  other  apos- 
tolic churches,  the  mother  and  root  of  the  Catholic 
Church.  Since  these  qualifications  are  not  given  to  her 
in  an  exclusive  manner,  they  prove  nothing  in  favour  of 
the  authority  she  claims.  No  one  denies  that  Rome  has 
been  one  of  the  most  important  centres  of  Christian  ra- 
diation over  the  world ;  no  one  disputes  that  she  was  a 
powerful,  venerable,  and  apostolic  church.  But  all  con- 
curs to  prove  that  her  importance  did  not  confer  univer- 
sal authority  upon  her  during  the  first  centuries. 

We  see  that  as  early  as  the  third  century,  the  Bishops 
of  Rome,  because  St.  Peter  had  been  one  of  the  founders 
of  that  see,  claimed  to  exercise  a  certain  authority  over 
the  rest  of  the  Church,  giving  themselves  sometimes  the 
title  of  bishop  of  bishops ;  but  we  also  see  that  the  whole 
Church  protested  against  these  ambitious  pretensions, 
and  held  them  of  no  account. 

Since  the  Roman  theologians  attach  so  much  import- 
ance to  the  testimony  of  St.  Cyprian  and  Tertullian,  we 
have  been  obliged  to  determine  the  sense  of  it  in  a  clear 
and  precise  manner.  To  the  texts  of  the  great  Cartha- 
ginian bishop  we  will  add  some  of  Tertullian,  which  are 
of  high  importance,  because  the  Roman  theologians  have 
wished  to  intei-pret  them  in  their  favor. 

In  his  book  against  Marcion,f  he  expresses  himself 
thus :  "  If  it  be  proved,  to  begin  with :  that  is  most  true 
which  is  most  primitive ;  that  is  most  primitive  which 
has  been  from  the  commencement ;  that  which  was  from 
the  commencement  was  established  by  the  Apostles ;  it 

*  Works  of  St.  Avitus,  edited  by  Father  Sirmond.    2d  volume  of  the  miscellaneous 
works  of  P.  Sirmond. 
+  TertuU.  adv.  Marcion.  Book  IV.  §  5. 


82  THE  PAPACY, 

will  then  be  equally  unquestionable,  that  that  has  been 
given  by  the  Apostles  which  has  been  held  sacred  by  the 
apostolic  churches.  Let  us  see  ichat  milk  the  Corinthians 
have  received  of  St.  Paul ;  according  to  what  law  the 
Galatians  have  been  corrected ;  what  the  Philippians, 
the  Thessalonians,  the  Ephesians  read ;  what  the  Romans 
our  neighbors  announce,  they  who  have  received  direct 
from  Peter  and  Paul  the  Gospel  attested  by  their  blood. 
We  have  also  the  churches  nourished  by  John."     .     . 

The  Church  of  Rome  is  here  assigned  its  proper  place, 
which  is  after  the  apostolic  churches,  whose  foundation 
was  anterior  to  her  own. 

Tertullian  does  not  esteem  her  witness  superior  to  that 
of  others ;  only  he  establishes  one  fact,  namely,  that 
the  Church  of  Rome,  the  only  apostolic  Church  of  the 
West,  was  nearer  than  the  others,  and  it  was  therefore 
more  easy  for  him  and  his  opponents  to  ascertain  her  tes- 
timony touching  the  questions  that  divided  them. 

In  his  book  De  Prcescrijotionibus  Tertullian  develops 
the  same  doctrine  of  the  loitness  of  apostolic  churches, 
and  he  appeals  to  that  of  the  Church  of  Rome  in  the 
same  manner  as  in  his  book  against  Marcion. 

"  That  which  the  Ajjostles  have  preached,"  he  said,* 
"  that  is  to  say,  that  which  Christ  has  revealed  to  them, 
I  claim  by  prescription,  that  it  should  only  be  proved 
by  the  churches  that  the  Apostles  have  founded,  teach- 
ing them,  either  viva  voce,  or  by  their  epistles.  If  this 
be  so,  all  doctrine  that  agrees  with  that  of  the  apostolic 
churches,  mothers  and  sources  of  faith, \  is  agreeable  to 
the  truth." 

Further  on,  Tertullian  applies  this  general  principle. 

"  Let  us  glance,"J  he  says,  "  at  the  apostolic  churches, 
where  the  sees  of  the  apostles  still  remain,  where  their 
epistles  are  still  read,  where  their  voice  still  resounds, 

•  Tertul.  De  Prtescript.  §  xxl.  t  Matricibus  et  orlginalibaa  fldeL 

%  Tertul.  De  Prescript.  §  xxxvi. 


2 HE  PAPACY,  83 

and  their  face,  a8  it  were,  is  still  seen.  Is  it  Achaia  that 
is  near  thee?  thou  hast  Corinth;  if  thou  art  not  far 
from  Macedonia,  thou  hast  the  Philippians ;  if  thou  canst 
go  to  Asia,  thou  hast  Ephesus ;  if  thou  dwellest  near 
Italy,  thou  hast  Rome,  whose  authority  is  near  us. 
How  happy  is  that  church  to  whom  the  Apostles  have 
given  all  its  doctrine  with  their  blood— where  Peter  suf- 
fered death  like  his  Lord,  where  Paul  was  crowned  by  the 
death  of  John  the  Baptist,  whence  the  Apostle  John,  after 
being  plunged  into  boiling  oil  without  suftering  any  ill, 
was  banished  to  an  island.  Let  us  see  what  that  church 
says,  what  it  teaches,  what  it  testifies  in  common  with 
the  churches  of  Africa." 

The  Romish  theologians  ordinarily  content  themselves 
with  quoting  that  part  of  the  text  we  have  put  in  italics. 
They  are  careful  not  to  call  attention  to  the  fact  that 
Tertullian  speaks  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  only  after  the 
other  apostolic  churches,  and  in  the  same  character  /  that 
he  appeals  specially  to  her  evidence,  only  because  it  was 
the  apostolic  church  nearest  to  Africa,  whose  testimony 
it  was  most  easy  to  obtain.  These  observations,  the  im- 
portance and  truth  of  which  all  will  understand,  destroy 
completely  the  interpretation  that  these  theologians  en- 
deavour to  give  to  the  few  lines  they  cite.  This  doubt- 
less is  why  they  ordinarily  pass  the  others  over  in  silence. 

The  Romish  theologians  have  eagerly  collected  many 
causes  brought  for  adjudication  to  the  see  of  Rome  dur- 
ing the  first  three  centuries,  and  have  instanced  them  as 
proofs  of  the  superior  authority  of  the  bishops  of  this 
see  over  all  the  Church.  Nevertheless,  these  appeals 
prove  absolutely  nothing  in  favour  of  that  authority.  The 
principal  instances  upon  which  they  rely  are  those  of 
Origen,  of  St.  Dionysius  of  Alexandria,  of  Paul  of  Samo- 
sata,  and  of  the  Novatians.  We  will  examine  these 
cases  in  the  light  of  authentic  historical  monuments. 

First,  we  will  establish  a  general  principle  which  de- 


84  THE   PAPACY. 

termines  their  true  character,  as  well  as  that  of  the 
appeals  addressed  subsequently  to  the  Bishop  of  Rome ; 
it  is,  that  an  appeal  to  a  see  or  a  bishop  is  not  a  proof  in 
favour  of  its  authority.  During  the  first  three  centuries, 
frequent  intercourse  existed  between  the  bishops ;  and  if 
a  discussion  arose  in  one  particular  church,  those  who 
endeavoured  to  piove  to  their  adversaries  that  they  Avere 
wrong,  addressed  themselves  to  other  bishops,  praying 
them  to  make  known  the  belief  of  their  churches,  so  as 
to  condemn  those  who  wished  to  give  force  to  new 
opinions.  Distant  churcTies  were  most  commonly  ap- 
pealed to,  such  as  could  not  be  suspected  of  partiality, 
apostolic  cliurches,  or  bishops  who  enjoyed  a  high  repu- 
tation for  holiness  or  learning.  Tliose  who  were  con- 
demned in  the  West  appealed  to  the  East,  and  those 
who  were  condemned  in  the  East  apj^ealed  to  the  West, 
and  above  all  to  Rome,  which  was  the  only  apostolic 
church  of  that  country. 

It  is  very  natural  that  the  Church  of  Rome  should 
not  have  been  excluded  from*these  appeals;  but,  before 
alleging  these  appeals  in  support  of  her  supreme  authority, 
it  would  be  necessary  to  show  her  to  have  been  the  only 
one  appealed  to,  and  that  her  sentences  were  received  as 
emanating  I'rom  that  authority.  We  shall  see  that  such 
Avas  not  the  case. 

Origen  never  appealed  to  Rome,  notwithstanding 
many  Romish  theologians  afiirin  that  he  did.  Con- 
demned at  first  by  the  bishops  of  Egypt,  subsequently 
by  several  others,  and  in  particular  by  the  Bishop  of 
Rome,  he  saw  fit  to  justify  himself  before  those  who  had 
condemned  him,  *'  But  he  also  wrote,"  says  Eusebius,* 
"to  Fabianus,  Bishop  of  Rome,  and  to  many  others  of 
the  bishops  of  churches,  respecting  his  orthodoxy."  Such 
is,  in  all  its  simplicity,  the  fact  in  which  Roman  theolo- 
gians have  found  a  proof  of  the  primacy  in  authority 

*  Euseb.  Hist.  Eccl.  Book  TI.  chap.  zxxtL 


TEE   PAPACY.  86 

and  jurisdiction  of  the  Bishops  of  Rome.  They  carefully 
avoid  quoting  tlie  text  of  Eusebius,  and  liave  passed 
over  in  silence  the  opinion  of  St.  Jerome  touching  the 
condemnations  of  Avhich  Origen  had  been  the  object. 
Jerome,  after  speaking  of  the  innumerable  labours  of  the 
learned  priest  of  Alexandria,  cries,*  "  What  reward  has 
he  received  for  so  much  toil  and  sweat  ?  He  is  con- 
demned by  Bishop  Demetrius,  and,  excepting  the  bishops 
of  Palestine,  Arabia,  Phoenicia  and  Achaia,  he  is  unan- 
imously condemned  by  all.  Even  Rome  assembled  her 
Senate  (that  is,  her  synod)  against  him ;  not  that  he 
taught  new  dogmas,  not  that  he  held  heretical  opinions, 
as  those  who  bark  after  him  like  furious  dojrs  would 
persuade  us ;  but  because  they  could  not  bear  the  bril- 
liancy of  his  eloquence  and  learning,  and  because,  when 
he  spoke,  all  the  othei'S  seemed  dumb." 

Thus,  according  to  St.  Jerome,  the  clergy  of  Rome  as- 
sociated themselves  in  low  intrigues  against  Origen ; 
and,  according  to  Eusebius,  this  great  man  wrote  to  the 
Bishop  of  Rome  as  he  wrote  to  many  others  to  justify 
his  fixith. 

We  ask  what  this  fact  proves  for  the  authority  of 
the  Bishops  of  Rome. 

The  case  of  St.  Dionysius  of  Alexandria  proves  noth- 
ing more.  Many  of  the  faithful,  not  having  undei-stood 
the  teaching  of  this  great  bishop  against  Sabellius  and 
his  partisans,  went  to  Rome,  and  attributed  a  heretical 
doctrine  to  him.  A  council  was  then  holding  in  that 
city.  The  Roman  bishop  wrote,  in  the  name  of  the 
council,  a  letter  to  Dionysius  of  Alexandria,  to  ascertain 
if  it  were  true  that  he  taught  the  doctnne  attributed  to 
him.  The  Bishop  of  Alexandria  sent  to  Rome  a  work  he 
had  composed  and  in  which  his  sentiments  were  set  forth 
with  precision. 

Such  is  the  substance  of  what  St.  Athanasius  and 

♦  Ap.  Ruff,  Uv.  u. 


86  THE  PAPACY. 

Eusebiua  wrote  on  this  point.  Now,  because  one  bishop 
asks  in  the  name  of  a  council,  for  information  from  an- 
other bishop  respecting  his  faith,  must  we  conclude  that 
the  bishop  who  seeks  this  infonnation  possesses  authori- 
ty and  jurisdiction  over  him  to  whom  he  writes  ?  It 
is  not  only  the  right  but  the  duty  of  eveiy  bishop  to 
seek  to  enlighten  a  brother  whom  he  beUeves  in  error, 
and  to  hold  himself  ready  to  give  an  account  of  his  own 
faith.  Thus,  the  bishops  of  Rome  and  Alexandria  per- 
formed an  imperative  duty ;  neither  of  them  exercised 
authority. 

Again,  because  many  ^7ent  to  Rome  to  accuse  him, 
is  there,  therefore,  no  reason  to  say  that  they  recognized 
a  superior  authority  in  this  see  ? 

Faustinus,  Bishop  of  Lyons,  wishing  to  have  Marcianus 
of  Aries  condemned,  accused  him  to  St.  Cyprian.  Did 
he  thereby  acknowledge  a  superior  authority  in  St.  Cyp- 
rian ?  Two  wicked  bishops,  who  showed  in  their  favour 
lettere  from  the  Bishop  of  Rome,*  were  condemned  by 
St.  Cyprian  upon  the  accusation  of  the  Spanish  bishops. 
Shall  we  infer  that  the  Spanish  bishops  acknowledged  in 
Cyprian  an  authority  not  only  over  their  church,  but 
superior  to  that  of  the  Bishop  of  Rome  ?  The  histoiy  of 
the  Church  affords  numerous  examples  of  bishops  who 
appealed  to  each  other,  and  that  without  recognizing 
any  authority  in  those  to  whom  the  causes  were  sub- 
mitted. 

Dionysius  of  Alexandria,f  himself  received  complaints 
against  the  doctrine  of  Paul  of  Samosata,  Bishop  of  An- 
tioch,  as  the  Bishop  of  Rome  had  received  them  against 
his.  As  that  bishop  had  written  to  him,  he  wrote  to  the 
Bishop  of  Antioch,  to  inform  him  of  the  accusations  made 
ag^ainst  him.     He  addressed  himself  to  Paul  in  the  name 


o 


♦  Letters  of  St.  Cyprian. 

t  Euseb,  Eccl.  Hist.  Book  VIL  chap,  xxviii,  and  xxx.     Library  of  the  Fathers, 
vol.  xl. 


THE  PAPACt.  8Y 

of  his  clergy,  as  the  Bisliop  of  Rome  liad  addressed  him. 
in  the  name  of  the  Roman  council.  The  Bishop  of  An- 
tioch  replied,  in  order  to  give  explanations ;  and  Diony- 
sius,  not  finding  them  suflficiently  clear,  wrote  back  to 
refute  them.  The  bishops  of  Syria  assembled  at  Antioch 
to  judge  Paul.  They  wrote  to  Firmilian  of  Caesarea  in 
Cappadocia,  and  to  Dionysius  of  Alexandria,  praying 
them  to  come  and  judge  with  them.  Had  they  thus 
written  to  the  Bisliop  of  Rome,  the  Romish  theologians 
would  have  gloried  in  the  fact,  which,  nevertheless, 
would  ])rove  nothing  more  in  favour  of  the  j.urisdiction 
of  that  bishop,  than  it  proves  in  favour  of  that  of  Firmi- 
lian or  of  Dionysius. 

The  latter  could  not  present  himself  at  the  council, 
because  of  a  serious  malady  that  shortly  after  laid  him 
in  the  tomb ;  but  he  wrote  to  the  Council  of  Antioch  a 
letter  wliich  was  sent  to  the  whole  Church  by  a  second 
council  that  terminated  the  case  of  Paul  of  Samosata. 

This  heretical  bishop  having  wished  to  continue  in  the 
episcopal  dwelling,  the  bishops,  in  order  to  have  him 
expelled,  wrote  to  the  Emj^eror  Aurelian  at  Rome,  who, 
says  Eusebius,*  "  decided  most  equitably,  ordering  the 
building  to  be  given  up  to  those  to  whom  the  Christian 
bishops  of  Italy  and  Rome  should  write." 

The  second  Council  of  AnLioch  had  written  to  the 
Bishop  of  Rome  as  well  as  to  the  successor  of  Dionysius 
in  the  see  of  Alexandria.  The  Church  of  Italy  adhered 
to  the  sentence  of  the  council  against  Paul  of  Samosata, 
who  was  drivfen  from  the  Church. 

It  has  been  wished  to  find  in  the  decision  of  Aurelian, 
a  proof  in  favor  of  the  universal  jurisdiction  of  the  Bishop 
of  Rome,  It  is  more  accurate  to  say  that  the  Emperor, 
in  the  affair  upon  which  he  had  been  consulted,  wished 
to  hear  the  testimony  of  bishops,  who  could  not  be 
reasonably  challenged  by  either   party,  because   they 

*  Eusebiua  Eccl,  Hist.  Book  VII.  chap.  xzz. 


88  THE   PAPACY. 

were  not  interested  to  favour  one  more  than  another ;  of 
bishops  whose  sentence  he  himself  could  easily  ascertain, 
since  he  lived  among  them.  It  must  be  remarked  that 
the  Emperor  did  not  give  as  final  the  sentence  of  the 
Bishop  of  Rome ;  he  named  him  with  the  other  bishops 
of  Italy,  and  after  them  y  and  if  he  mentioned  him  in 
a  special  manner,  it  was  evidently  because  of  the  im- 
portance of  his  see,  established  in  the  capital  of  the 
empire,  and  not  because  he  enjoyed  any  particular  au- 
thority. 

There  must  truly  be  great  need  of  proofs  in  favour  of 
the  Roman  supremacy,  when  its  supporters  look  for 
them  in  the  conduct  of  a  pagan  emperor ;  while  all  the 
ecclesiastical  details  of  the  affair  of  Paul  of  Samosata 
prove  that  supremacy  had  not  been  recognized  by  the 
Church. 

The  case  of  the  Novatians  is  not  more  favourable  to 
their  system.  The  schism  of  Novatus  of  Carthage  is 
easily  confounded  with  that  of  Novatian  of  Rome.  The 
partisans  of  Novatian  like  those  of  Novatus,  affected 
an  extreme  rigor  toward  those  whom  persecution  had 
overcome.  Novatian  having  established  his  schism  at 
Rome,  as  Novatus  had  done  at  Carthage,  the  schisma- 
tics of  Rome  endeavoured  to  obtain  the  support  of  the 
Church  of  Africa,  as  the  schismatics  of  Carthage  that  of 
the  Church  of  Rome.  From  their  relations  and  appeals 
one  might  as  fairiy  infer  the  supremacy  of  Carthage  over 
Rome.  But  the  Romish  theologians  sndeavour  to  fix  the 
attention  only  upon  that  of  Rome ;  wherefore  is  easily 
understood.     Their  efforts  are  useless,  for  facts  confound 

them. 

St.  Cvprian  in  several  councils  severely  condemned 
the  opinions  of  Novatus  and  Novatian.  Tlie  first,  a  most 
zealous  partisan  of  sentiments  which  were  not  less  than 
criminal,  seeing  he  was  about  to  be  brought  to  trial, 
fled  to  Rome.      There  he  had  an  midcrstandmg  with 


THE  PAPACY.  89 

Novatian,  who  aspired  to  the  Episcopate  of  that  city, 
and  caused  him  to  be  proclaimed  bishop,  although  Cor- 
nelius was  already  lawfully  elected. 

Cornelius  and  his  competitor  addressed  themselves  to 
the  Bishop  of  Carthage.  Cyprian  believed  in  the  law- 
fulness of  Cornelius'  election  ;  yet  he  did  not  admit 
him  at  once  to  his  communion,  because  of  the  letters  of 
his  rival.  He  called  a  council  of  the  bishops  of  Africa, 
who  determined  to  send  two  of  their  number  to  Rome, 
in  order  to  learn  what  had  happened  there.  The  result 
being  favourable  to  Cornelius,  communion  was  establish- 
ed between  him  and  the  bishops  of  Africa. 

Novatian  still  continued  to  call  himself  the  Bishop  of 
Rome,  and  renewed  his  appeals  to  the  Church  of  Africa. 
He  was  foiled  by  the  energy  of  Cyprian,  but  never- 
theless gained  some  partisans.  At  Rome  his  party  was 
considerable.  Cyprian  interfered  to  reestablish  the 
order  of  the  Church,  and  succeeded,  and  Cornelius  in- 
formed him  of  the  happy  event. 

Up  to  this  time,  it  is  rather  the  Bishop  of  Carthage 
who  influences  the  affairs  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  than 
the  Bishop  of  Rome,  those  of  the  Church  of  Carthage. 
But  soon  after,  the  schismatics  of  the  latter  city  elected 
a  bishop  who  sought  communion  Avith  the  Church  of 
Rome.  This  party  afterward  divided  in  two  portions, 
each  one  choosing  a  bishop ;  this  division  weakened 
them.  Not  having  been  able  to  gain  any  partisans  in 
Africa,  they  presented  themselves  at  Rome,  to  accuse 
Cyprian,  as  formerly  they  had  accused  Cornelius  before 
the  Bishop  of  Carthage.  The  Bishop  of  Rome  permitted 
himself  to  be  shaken  by  their  calumnies ;  but  he  arrived 
at  other  conclusions  after  having  received  the  letters  of 
Cyprian. 

Novatian's  party  existed  at  Rome  after  the  death  of 
Cornelius.  He  had  partisans  in  most  of  the  churches. 
Marciacus,  Bishop  of  Aries,  was  of  the  number. 


90  THE  PAPACY. 

Faustinus,  Bishop  of  Lyons,  believed  it  necessary  un- 
der these  circumstances  to  appeal  for  support  to  the 
principal  bishops  of  the  West,  in  order  to  condemn 
Marcianus.  He  therefore  addressed  Stephen,  Bishop 
of  Rome,  and  Cyprian.  The  latter  had  written  to  the 
Bishop  of  Rome,  to  tell  him  what  he  ought  to  do  under 
the  circumstances.  He  was  himself  too  far  from  the 
seat  of  the  trouble  to  give  much  attention  to  the  case, 
and  he  entreated  his  brother  of  Rome  to  write  to  the 
clergy  and  people  of  Aries,  advising  them  to  depose 
Marcianus. 

In  all  these  facts,  related  exactly  after  authentic  docu- 
ments,* nothing  can  be  seen  but  an  equal  intervention 
by  the  bishops  of  Rome  and  Carthage,  in  the  affairs 
of  the  Church,  an  equal  desire  to  entertain  friendly  re- 
lations between  them,  and  to  be  in  perfect  communion. 
II*  St.  Cyprian  praises  Cornelius  and  the  Church  of  Rome 
for  condemning  the  schismatics  of  Africa,  he  had  pre- 
viously blamed  them  for  having  hesitated  to  pronounce 
between  him  and  the  illegitimate  bishop  who  had  pre- 
sented himself  at  Rome.  Happy  that  his  adversaries 
had  not  found  in  that  church  the  support  they  hoped 
for,  he  gave  gi-eat  praise  to  the  Romans,  and  it  was  then 
he  wrote  that  famous  passage,  which  has  been  so  much 
abused  : 

"They  (his  adversaries)  dared  to  embark  and  carry 
their  letters  to  the  see  of  Peter,  to  the  principal  church 
from  which  sacerdotal  unity  has  sprung,  not  thinking 
there  were  the  Romans  whose  faith  the  Apostle  has 
praised,  and  to  whom  pei-fidy  can  have  no  access." 

"We  have  explained  according  to  St.  Cyprian  himself, 
the  expressions  from  which  the  Romish  theologians 
would  draw  such  vast  conclusions.  It  only  remains  for 
us,  therefore,  to  notice  that  the  circumstances  and  the 
context  take  from  them  all  the  importance  it  has  been 

*  See  chiefly  the  Letters  of  St.  Cyprian. 


THE   PAPACY.  91 

sought  to  attribute  to  them.  It  was  right  that  St.  Cyp- 
rian should  thank  the  Church  of  Rome  for  declaring  in 
his  favour  against  his  adversaries.  In  order  to  do  this, 
he  recalls  the  memory  of  its  two  founders — of  St,  Peter, 
who  was  the  type  of  unity  in  the  apostolic,  and,  by  con- 
sequence, of  the  Episcopal  body ;  of  St.  Paul,  who  had 
praised  the  faith  of  the  Romans.  It  must  be  observed, 
it  is  not  to  the  Bishop  of  Rome  that  he  gives  this  praise, 
but  to  the  clergy  and  faithful  of  that  Church,  who,  at 
his  prayer,  had  read  his  letters,  and  before  whom  he 
had  pleaded  his  cause.  In  his  eyes  the  bishop  is  nothing 
without  his  clergy  and  the  faithful,  and  he  grants  him 
no  personal  prerogative.  This  text  of  St.  Cyprian,  there- 
fore, is  contrary,  not  favourable  to  the  system  of  a  Papal 
autocracy.  Any  one  will  be  convinced  of  this  who  reads 
entire  the  letters  of  the  bishops  of  Rome  and  Carthage. 
They  both  act  only  in  concert  with  the  clergy  of  their 
Church  and  the  bishops  of  their  province ;  neither  as- 
sumes any  personal  authority. 


92  THE   PAPACY. 


IV. 


IjACTS  combine  with  doctrinal  evidences  to 
prove  that  the  Papacy  enjoyed  no  universal 
authority  during  the  first  tliree  centuries  of 
the  Church ;  to  prove  that  the  bishops  of  Rome 
had  in  ecclesiastical  affaii-s  only  such  influence  as  was 
necessarily  derived  from  the  importance  and  dignity  of 
their  see  ;  the  only  one  in  the  West,  which  was  general- 
ly recognized  as  apostolic. 

Moreover,  the  Church  of  Rome  was  the  mother  of 
many  other  churches,  over  which  she  exercised  a  cer- 
tain authority,  as  we  learn  from  the  sixth  canon  of  the 
first  oecumenical  council  held  at  Nicea  a.d.  325. 

There  has  been  a  great  deal  of  discussion  upon  this 
famous  canon,  in  which  the  Roman  theologians  have  en- 
deavoured to  see  an  argument  in  favour  of  their  opinions. 

They  have  called  in  evidence  all  the  manuscnpts  in 
order  to  find  some  that  should  favour  their  views ;  and 
they  have,  in  fact,  found  some  which  sei've  them  admir- 
ably, by  reason  of  certain  additions,  which  would  be 
very  satisfactory  if  they  were  only  authentic.  For  in- 
stance :  "  Since,  then,  the  holy  synod  has  confirmed  the 
primacy  of  the  Ajiostolic  /See,  which  is  what  is  due  to 
the  merit  of  St.  Peter,  who  is  the  prince  of  the  whole 
episcopate  (literally,  of  the  episcopal  crown)  and  to  the 
dignity  of  the  city  of  Rome." 

This  is  certainly  a  beautiful  preamble  for  the  sixth 


THE  PAPACY.  93 

canon  of  Nicca;  but  it  is  unfortunate  that  the  forger 
should  betray  himself,  even  by  his  style,*  which  cannot 
be  antecedent  to  the  date  of  the  manuscript  itself,  name- 
ly, the  middle  ages.  In  a  Roman  manuscript,  at  the 
head  of  the  sixth  canon,  we  read  :  "  The  Roman  Church 
always  had  the  primacy."  These  words,  which  we  might 
otherwise  adopt,  are  copied  from  the  Acts  of  the  Council 
of  Chalcedon,  and  in  no  wise  belong  to  those  of  Nicea 
any  more  than  this  other  formula  interpolated  in  another 
manuscript,  "  Let  the  Roman  Church  have  the  primacy 
forever."  All  these  additions  were  unknown  in  the  ninth 
century,  since  the  author  of  the  Fausses  Decr'etales,  who 
was  then  living,  and  who  would  not  have  failed  to  profit 
by  them,  has  given  the  canons  of  the  early  councils,  ac- 
cording to  Dionysius  Exiguus.  This  learned  man,  who 
made  his  collection  of  the  canons  at  Rome  itself,  died  in 
the  first  half  of  the  sixth  century.  According  to  Cassi- 
odorus,  he  had  a  perfect  acquaintance  with  Greek ;  his 
version,  consequently,  deserves  entire  confidence,  and  in 
it  we  find  none  of  the  preceding  additions ;  but  it  is  thus 
Ave  find  the  sixth  canon  of  the  Nicene  Council : 

"  Let  the  ancient  custom  be  preserved,  that  exists  in 
Egypt,  Lybia,  and  Pentapolis,  that  the  Bishop  of  Alex- 
andria have  authority  in  all  tliese  countries,  since  that 
has  a\^o  passed  into  a  custom  for  the  Bishop  of  Rome. 
Let  the  churches  at  Antioch  and  in  the  other  provinces 
preserve  also  their  privileges.  Now,  it  is  very  evident, 
that  if  any  one  be  made  bishop  without  the  concurrence 
of  the  njetropolitan,  the  great  council  declares  that  he 
may  not  be  bishop,"  etc.,  etc. 

The  object  of  this  canon  was  to  defend  the  authority 


♦  We  give  It  as  a  specimen  of  its  liind  :  Cum  igitur  sedia  apostolicm  prima- 
tum,  eancti  Petri  meritum  qui  princeps  est  epiacopalis  coronce  st  Rmnana 
dignitas  civitatis,  sacrm  etiam  nynodi  firmavit  auctoritaa.  It  is  only  neces- 
sary to  have  read  t-vo  pages  of  the  Ecclesiastical  Remains  of  the  Fourth  Century,  to 
discover  at  first  sight  the  fraud,  and  be  persuaded  that  this  ambitious  and  uncouth 
verbiage  Is  of  a  much  later  age. 


04  THE  PAPACY. 

of  the  Bishop  of  Alexandria  against  the  partisans  of 
Meletius,  Bishop  of  Lycopolis,  who  refused  to  recognize 
it  in  episcopal  ordinations. 

The  object  of  the  sixth  canon,  therefore,  was  merely 
to  confirm  the  ancient  customs  respecting  these  ordina- 
tions, and,  in  general,  the  privileges  consecrated  by  an- 
cient usage.  Now,  according  to  an  ancient  custom, 
Rome  enjoyed  certain  prerogatives  that  no  one  contest- 
ed. The  council  makes  use  of  this  fact  in  order  to  con- 
firm the  similar  prerogatives  of  Alexandria,  Antioch,  and 
other  churches. 

But  what  were  the  churches  over  which,  according  to 
custom,  the  Church  of  Rome  exercised  a  right  of  super- 
vision ? 

Ruffinus  designates  them  Suhurbicarian.  This  writer, 
who  wrote  his  Ecclesiastical  History  in  the  fourth  cen- 
tury, who  was  born  at  Aquileia  and  dwelt  at  Rome, 
must  have  known  the  extent  of  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
Roman  Church  in  his  times.  Now,  what  does  he  under- 
stand by  the  suburbicarian  churches  f  It  is  known  that 
from  and  after  Constantino's  reign,  the  Church  was  di- 
vided in  dioceses  and  provinces  like  the  empire  itself.* 
From  this  undeniable  fact,  we  know  the  suburbicarian 
churches ;  they  are  those  which  existed  in  places  of  the 
same  name  in  the  fourth  centuiy — these  places  being 
those  that  were  dependent  upon  the  diocese,  or  the  pre- 
fecture of  Rome — that  is  to  say,  the  ten  provinces 
called  "  Sicilia,  Corsica,  Sardinia,  Campania,  Tuscia, 
Picenum  Suburbicarium,  Apulia  cum  Calabria,  Brut tiura, 
Samnium,  Valeria."  Northern  Italy  formed  another  dio- 
cese, of  which  Milan  was  the  prefecture,  and  was  not 
dependent  upon  Rome.  The  diocese  of  Rome  did  not 
call  itself  Italy,  but  the  Roman  Territory.     This  is  why 


*  A  diocese  was  then  a  union  of  several  provinces,  and  a  province  was  a  section 
of  a  diocese.  Tlie  words  have  changed  their  sense,  and  at  this  time  an  ecclesiastical 
province  la  composed  of  several  dioceses. 


THE  PAPACY.  95 

St.  Athanaslus*  calls  Milan  the  metropolis  of  Italy ^  and 
Rome  the  metropolis  of  the  Roman  Territory.  In  the 
fourth  century,  therefore,  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Roman 
bishops  extended  only  over  southern  Italy  and  the  isl- 
ands of  Corsica,  Sicily,  and  Sardinia. 

When  the  Fathers  of  the  Church  speak  of  the  see  of 
Rome  as  the  first  of  the  West,  they  do  not  intend  to 
speak  of  its  universal  jurisdiction,  but  of  its  greatness  as 
the  only  apostolic  episcopate  of  these  countries. 

The  provinces  which  the  Council  of  Nicea  subjected  to 
the  jurisdiction  of  the  Bishop  of  Alexandria  formed  the 
diocese  of  Egypt ^  just  as  those  subject  to  the  Bishop 
of  Rome  formed  the  diocese  of  Rome.  It  makes  a  com- 
parison between  them  that  perfectly  agrees  with  the 
commentary  of  Ruffinus.  The  sixth  and  seventh  canons 
of  the  Council  of  Nicea  may  be  considered  as  the  legal 
origin  of  the  patriarchates  ;  the  title  was  not  yet  in  use, 
but  the  order  was  established.  According  to  the  prin- 
ciple admitted  by  the  first  general  council,  the  number 
of  patriarchs  was  not  limited  to  four;  we  are  even 
given  to  understand  that  beside  the  four  great  apostolic 
churches  of  Rome,  Alexandria,  Antioch,  and  Jerusalem, 
there  were  others  which  enjoyed  similar  privileges.  The 
bishops  of  these  churches  did  not  obtain  the  title  of  pa- 
triarch, but  they  enjoyed  other  titles  that  raised  them 
above  the  simple  metropolitans,  such  as  exarch  and 
primate. 

In  spite  of  the  subterfuges  of  the  Romish  theologians, 
they  cannot  escape  from  two  consequences  of  the  sixth 
canon  of  the  Council  of  Nicea : 

1st.  The  council  declared  that  the  authority  of  the 
Bishop  of  Rome  extended  only  over  a  limited  district^ 
like  that  of  the  Bishop  of  Alexandria. 

2d.  That  this  authority  was  only  based  upon  usage. 

Hence,  it  follows  that  this  authority  in  the  eyes  of  the 

*  8t  Athanas.  Ep.  ad  SoUt 


96  THE  PAPACY. 

council  was  not  universal ;  that  it  was  not  of  divine  right. 
The  ultramontane  system,  being  entirely  based  upon  the 
universal  and  divine  character  of  the  Papal  authority,  is 
diametrically  opposed  to  the  sixth  canon  of  the  Nicene 
Council. 

Nevertheless,  it  must  be  admitted  that  the  council,  by 
invoking  the  Roman  custom,  in  confirmation  of  that  of 
Alexandria,  recognized  the  legitimacy  of  the  established 
usage.,  and  rendered  homage  to  the  dignity  of  the  Ro- 
man see  ;  but  we  must  add,  that  the  prerogatives  recog- 
nized in  it  were  not  those  to  which  it  has  since  laid 
claim. 

The  General  Council  of  Constantinople,  a.d.  381, 
which  is  the  second  oecumenical-  council,  has  well 
intei-preted  that  of  Nicea  by  its  third  canon,  "  Let  the 
Bishop  of  Constantinople  have  the  primacy  of  honour 
{priores  honoris  partes)  after  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  he- 
cause  Constantinople  is  the  new  Rome." 

The  Bishop  of  Rome  was,  therefore,  regarded  as  the 
first  in  honour,  because  he  was  bishop  of  the  capital  of 
the  empire.  Byzantium  having  become  the  second  cap- 
ital, under  the  name  of  Constantinople,  its  bishop  be- 
came entitled  to  be  second  in  rank,  according  to  the 
principle  that  had  governed  the  Council  of  Nicea  in  the 
exterior  constitution  of  the  Church,  and  according  to 
which  the  divisions  of  the  empire  were  made  the  divi- 
sions of  the  Church, 

The  (Ecumenical  Council  of  Chalcedon,  a.d.  451,  which 
met  a  century  after  that  of  Constantinople,  throws  a  new 
light  upon  this  point,  and  thus  expresses  itself  in  the 
twenty-eighth  canon : 

"  In  all  things  following  the  decrees  of  the  holy  Fa- 
thers, and  recognizing  the  canon  just  read  by  the  one 
hundred  and  fifty  bishops  well-beloved  of  God,  (third 
canon  of  the  second  council,)  we  decree  and  establish  the 
same  thing  touching  the  privileges  of  the  most  holy 


THE  PAPACY.  97 

Church  pf  Constantinople,  the  new  Rome.  Most  justly 
did  the  Fathers  grant  privileges  to  the  see  of  the  ancient 
Rome,  BECAUSE  she  was  the  reigning  (capital)  city. 
Moved  by  the  same  motive,  the  one  hundred  and  fifty  bish- 
ops well-beloved  of  God,  grant  equal  privileges  to  the 
most  holy  see  of  the  new  Rome,  thinking,  veiy  properly, 
that  the  city  that  has  the  honour  to  be  the  seat  of  the  em- 
pire and  of  the  senate,  should  enjoy  in  ecclesiastical  things 
the  same  privileges  as  Rome,  the  ancient  queen  city, 
since  the  former,  although  of  later  origin,  has  been  raised 
and  honoured  as  much  as  the  latter."  In  consequence  of 
this  decree,  the  council  subjected  the  dioceses  of  Pontus, 
of  Asia,*  and  of  Thrace,  to  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Bishop 
of  Constantinople. 

The  legates  of  Pope  Leo  I.  in  the  Council  of  Chalcedon 
opposed  this  canon.  It  was  adopted,  nevertheless ;  but 
the  Fathers  of  the  council  addressed  a  respectful  letter 
to  Leo,  in  which,  after  alluding  to  the  opposition  of  the 
legates,  they  add :  "  We  therefore  beg  you  to  honour  our 
JUDGMENT  by  your  own  decrees." 

Romish  theologians  have  claimed  to  see  in  this  pro- 
ceeding a  proof  that  the  Fathers  of  Chalcedon  recognized 
in  the  Bishop  of  Rome  a  supreme  authority  over  the  de- 
cisions of  the  councils,  which,  they  say,  would  be  of  no 
avail  if  not  confirmed  by  him.  But  it  is  more  just  to  see 
in  this  but  an  act  of  great  propriety  inspired  by  the  love 
of  peace  and  harmony.  The  council  would  of  course  de- 
sire that  the  West  should  be  in  concord  with  the  East. 
The  Bishop  of  Rome  represented  the  West  in  the  council, 
being  the  only  bishop  in  the  West  possessing  an  apostolic 
see  ;  again,  his  see  was  the^rs^  in  honour  in  the  universal 
Church,  and  evidently  it  was  proper  to  entreat  him  to 
acquiesce  in  the  decision  of  the  council.  He  was  not 
asked  to  confirm  it,  but  by  his  own  decrees  to  honour  the 

*  Asia  Minor  is  understood,  the  ancient  Metropolis  of  wMch  was  Epbesas.    The 
part  of  Asia  confided  to  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Bishop  of  Antioch  Is  called  the  East. 


98  THE  PAPACY. 

judgment  which  had  been  rendered.  If  the  confirmation 
of  the  Bishop  of  Rome  had  been  necessary,  would  the  de- 
cree of  Chalcedon  have  been  z,  judgment,  a  promulgated 
decision  before  that  confirmation  ? 

St.  Leo  did  not  understand  the  letter  from  the  Council 
of  Chalcedon  as  do  our  Romish  theologians.  He  re- 
fused— not  to  confirm  it  by  his  authority — but  simply 
to  admit  it.  "  This  decree  shall  never  obtain  our  con- 
sent^'' he  said.*  And  why  did  he  refuse  his  consent  ? 
Because  the  decree  of  Chalcedon  took  from  the  Bishop 
of  Alexandria  the  second  rank,  and  the  third  from  the 
Bishop  of  Antioch,  and  was  in  so  far  forth  contrary  to 
the  sixth  canon  of  the  Council  of  Nicea,  and  because  the 
same  decree  prejudiced  the  rights  of  several  primates  or 
metropolitans.!  In  another  letter  addressed  to  the  Em- 
peror Marcianus,J  St.  Leo  reasoned  in  the  same  manner : 
"  The  Bishop  of  Constantinople,  in  spite  of  the  glory  of 
his  church,  cannot  make  it  apostolic  ;  he  has  no  right  to 
aggrandize  it  at  the  expense  of  churches  whose  privi- 
leges, established  by  canons  of  the  holy  Fathers  and  set- 
tled by  the  decrees  of  the  venerable  Council  of  Nicea, 
cannot  be  unsettled  by  perversity  nor  violated  by  in- 
novation." 

The  Church  of  Rome  has  too  well  forgotten  this  prin- 
ciple of  one  of  her  greatest  bishops. 

In  his  letter  to  the  Empress  Pulcheria,§  St.  Leo  de- 
clares that  he  has  "  annulled  the  decree  of  Chalcedon  by 
the  authority  of  the  blessed  Apostle  St.  Peter,"  These 
words  seem  at  first  sight  to  mean  that  he  claimed  for 
himself  a  sovereign  authority  in  the  Church  in  the  name 
of  St.  Peter ;  but  upon  a  more  careful  and  an  unbiased 
examination  of  his  letters  and  other  writings,  we  are 
convinced  that  St.  Leo  only  spoke  as  the  bishop  of  an 

•  St.  Leo,  epls.  1111.  vet.  edit. ;  Ixxxlv.  edit.  Quesn.  t  Ibid. 

}  Ft.  Leo,  epls.  liv.  vet.  edit. ;  Ixxxvlil.  edit.  Quesn. 
I  St  Leo,  epls.  Iv.  vet.  edit. 


THE  PAPACY.  90 

apostolic  see,  and  that  in  this  character  he  claimed  the 
right,  in  the  name  of  the  apostles  who  had  founded  his 
church,  and  of  the  western  countries  which  he  represent- 
ed, to  resist  any  attempt  on  the  part  of  the  Eastern 
Church  to  decide,  alone,  matters  of  general  interest  to 
the  whole  Church. 

The  proof  that  he  regarded  matters  in  this  light  is 
that  he  does  not  claim  for  himself  any  personal  au- 
thority of  divine  origin,  descended  to  hiTsxfrom  St.  Peter ^ 
but  that,  on  the  contrary,  he  presents  himself  as  de- 
fender of  the  canons,  and  looks  upon  the  rights  and  reci- 
procal duties  of  the  churches  as  having  been  established 
by  the  Fathers  and  fixed  by  the  Council  of  Nicea.  He 
does  not  pretend  that  his  church  has  any  exceptional 
rights,  emanating  from  another  source.  But  by  eccle- 
siastical right .^  he  is  the  first  bishop  of  the  Church  ;  be- 
sides, he  occupies  the  apostolic  see  of  the  West ;  in  these 
characters  he  must  interfere  and  prevent  the  ambition  of 
one  particular  church  from  impairing  rights  that  the 
canons  have  accorded  to  other  bishops,  too  feeble  to  re- 
sist, and  from  disturbing  the  peace  of  the  whole  Church. 
After  carefully  reading  all  that  St.  Leo  has  written 
against  the  canon  of  the  Council  of  Chalcedon,  it  can- 
not be  doubted  what  he  really  meant.  He  does  not 
claim  for  himself  the  autocracy  which  Romish  theolo- 
gians make  the  ground-work  of  papal  authority.  In 
his  letter  to  the  Fathers  of  the  Council  of  Chalcedon,  he 
only  styles  himself  "  guardian  of  the  catholic  faith  and 
of  the  constitutions  of  the  Fathers,"  and  not  chief  and 
master  of  the  Church  hy  divine  right*  He  regarded  the 
canon  of  the  Council  of  Chalcedon  as  wrung  from  the 
members  of  that  assembly  by  the  influence  of  the  Bishop 
of  Constantinople,  and  he  wrote  to  the  Bishop  of  Anti- 
ochjf  that  he  ought  to  consider  that  canon  as  null,  inas- 

*  St.  Leo,  epis.  1x1.  vet.  edit ;  Ixxx.  edit.  Quesa. 
t  St.  Leo,  epls.  Isii.  vet.  edit. ;  xciL  edit.  Qaesn. 


100  THE  PAPACY. 

much  as  it  was  contrary  to  the  decrees  of  Nicea.  "  Now," 
he  adds,  "  universal  peace  can  only  subsist  upon  the  con- 
dition that  the  canons  be  respected." 

Modern  Popes  Avould  not  have  written  thus,  but  would 
have  substituted  theii-  personal  authority  for  the  language 
of  the  canons. 

Anatolius  of  Constantinople  wrote  to  St.  Leo  that  he 
was  wrong  in  attributing  the  twenty-eighth  canon  of 
the  Council  of  Chalcedon  to  his  influence ;  that  the  Fa- 
thers of  the  council  had  enjoyed  full  lilDerty ;  and  that 
as  far  as  he  himself  Avas  concerned,  he  did  not  care  for 
the  privileges  that  had  been  conferred  upon  him.  Never- 
theless, these  privileges  remained  in  spite  of  the  opposition 
of  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  and  were  recognized  even  in  the 
West.  Let  us  give  one  proof  among  a  thousand.  It  is 
a  letter  from  an  illustrious  Galilean  bishop — St.  Avitus, 
metropolitan  Bishop  of  Vienne — to  John,  Bishop  of  Con- 
stantinople.* At  the  same  time  Ave  can  perceiA^e  in  the 
struggles  betAveen  the  bishops  of  Rome  and  Constanti- 
nople respecting  the  canon  of  Chalcedon,  the  origin  of 
the  dissensions  Avhich  afterAvard  led  to  an  entire  rupture. 
In  principle,  Leo  Avas  right  to  defend  the  canons  of  Nicea  ; 
but  he  could  not  deny  that  one  cecumenical  council  had 
the  same  rights  as  another  that  had  preceded  it ;  especi- 
ally Avhile  it  adhered  to  the  spirit  that  had  directed  it. 
The  Nicene  Council,  in  consecrating  the  usage  by  wlilch 
the  Bishop  of  Rome  was  regarded  as  thej^rs^  in  honour 
in  the  Church,  had  in  view  not  so  much  the  apostolic 
origin  of  his  see,  as  the  splendour  which  he  acquired  from 
the  importance  of  the  city  of  Rome ;  for  many  other 
churches  had  an  equally  apostolic  origin,  and  Antioch,  as 
a  church  founded  by  St.  Peter,  had  priority  over  Rome. 
Why,  then,  should  not  the  Bishop  of  Constantinople  have 
been  received  as  second  in  rank,  Constantinople  having 
become  the  second  capital  of  the  empire ;  since  the  Bishop 

♦  Works  of  St.  Avitus,  In  the  miscellaneous  works  of  P.  Sirmond. 


THE  PAPACY.  101 

of  Rome  was  first  in  rank,  only  because  of  its  position  as 
the  first  capital  ?  It  was  well  understood  that  the  Coun- 
cil of  Chalcedon  had  not  been  unfaithful  to  the  spirit  tliat 
had  inspired  that  of  Nicea  ;  and  that  if  it  had  somewhat 
chano-ed  the  letter  of  its  decrees,  it  had  done  so  in  obedi- 
once  to  the  same  motives  that  had  directed  the  first 
oecumenical  assembly.  It  sustamed  itself,  moreover,  upon 
the  second  oecumenical  council,  which,  without  giving 
to  the  Bishop  of  Constantinople  any  patriarchal  jurisdic- 
tion, had,  nevertheless,  conferred  upon  him  the  title  of 
second  bishop  of  the  universal  Church,  and  that  too 
without  any  opposition  on  the  part  of  the  Bishop  of 
Rome,  or  any  other  Bishop  in  the  West. 

The  twenty-eighth  canon  of  Chalcedon  was  the  con- 
sequence of  the  tliii'd  canon  of  Constantinople.  It  was 
the  more  necessary  to  give  to  a  patriarch  jurisdiction 
over  the  dioceses  of  Asia,  Pontus,  and  Thrace,  that  elec- 
tions and  consecrations  occasioned  in  these  dioceses  per- 
petual struggles  between  the  primates  and  the  metro- 
politans. The  Council  of  Nicea  having  sanctioned  the 
privileges  founded  upon  usage,  every  primate  and  me- 
tropolitan pretended  to  have  some  such  rights. 

It  was  thus  the  Bishop  of  Antioch  endeavoured  to 
stretch  his  jurisdiction  over  the  isle  of  Cyprus;  but  from 
time  immemorial  this  Church  had  governed  herself  by  her 
bishops  together  with  the  metropolitan.  The  case  was 
carried  to  the  (Ecumenical  Council  of  Ephesus,  which  de- 
clared in  favor  of  the  Church  of  Cyprus.  Its  motive 
was,  "  that  it  was  necessary  to  beware,  lest  under  pre- 
text of  the  priesthood  the  liberty  ie  lost  which  Jesus 
Christ,  the  liberator  of  all  men,  has  given  to  us,  at  the 
cost  of  his  blood."* 

This  is  why  the  metropolitans  of  Cyprus  styled  them- 
selves as  before  avroKecpaXoc  (independent)  and  did  not 
recognize  the  jurisdiction  of  any  superior  bishop.     The 

•  St.  Leo^Epis.  xcli    Labbe,  CoUec.  of  Councils.    Cabassut.  Not.  Eccl.  p.  209. 


102  THE  PAPACY. 

Bishop  of  Jerusalem  was  likewise  acephalous,  or  with- 
out chief,  according  to  the  seventh  canon  of  the  Nicene 
Council,  and  he  retained,  the  ancient  honour  of  his  see. 

Thus  Leo  was  right  to  pronounce  in  favour  of  re- 
spect for  canons  ;  but  he  was  wrong  in  placing  disciplin- 
ary canons  in  the  same  rank  with  dogmatic  definitions. 
In  fact,  the  first  may  be  modified  when  grave  reasons 
demand  it,  nay,  should  be  modified,  sometimes,  in  the 
letter,  if  it  be  desired  to  preseiwe  them  in  spirit  /  while 
definitions  of  faith  should  never  be  modified  as  to  the 
letter,  much  less  as  to  the  spirit. 

The  canons  of  the  first  oecumenical  councils  throw  in- 
contestably  strong  light  upon  the  prerogatives  of  the 
Bishop  of  Rome.  They  are  the  complement  to  each 
other.  The  twenty-eighth  canon  of  Chalcedon  contains 
nothing  less  than  the  doctrine  we  defend,  even  though 
the  opposition  of  the  West,  in  the  pei-son  of  the  Bishop 
of  Rome,  should  strip  it  of  its  oecumenical  character  as 
certain  theologians  maintain  ;  for  it  is  well  to  notice  that 
St.  Leo  did  not  protest  against  it  as  oj^posed  to  the  di- 
vine and  universal  authority  of  the  see  of  Rome,  for 
which  he  only  claimed  an  ecclesiastical  primacy,  but 
simply  because  it  infringed  upon  the  sixth  canon  of 
Nicea,  in  bringing  down  the  Bishop  of  Alexandria  to  the 
third  rank  of  the  episcopate,  and  the  Bishop  of  Antioch 
to  the  fourth. 

It  is,  therefore,  incontestable  that  at  that  period  the 
Bishop  of  Rome  did  not  possess  universal  authority  in 
the  Church  by  divine  right. 

This  is  still  more  evident,  from  the  part  that  the  bish- 
ops of  Rome  took  in  the  councils.  One  fact  is  certain, 
that  they  did  not  convoke  the  first  four  oecumenical 
councils,  that  they  did  not  preside  over  them,  that  they 
did  not  confirm  them. 

We  will  prove  this  for  each  of  the  Councils. 

Here  is  what  Eusebius  relates  of  the  convocation,  pre- 


THE  PAPACY.  103 

sidence,  and  confirmation  of  the  First  CEcumenical  coun- 
cil of  Nicea :  * 

Constantine  declared  that  he  must  prosecute  to  the 
utmost  this  war  against  the  secret  adversary  who  was 
disturbing  the  peace  of  the  Church. 

Resolved,  therefore,  to  bring  as  it  were  a  divine  ar- 
ray against  this  enemy,  Jie  convoked  a  general  council^ 
and  invited  the  speedy  attendance  of  bishops  from  all 
quarters  in  letters  expressive  of  the  honorable  estimation 
in  which  he  held  them.  Nor  was  this  merely  the  issu- 
ing of  a  bare  command,  but  the  Emperor's  condescension 
contributed  much  to  its  being  can-ied  into  effect :  "  For 
he  allowed  some  the  use  of  the  public  means  of  convey- 
ance, while  he  afforded  to  others  an  ample  supply  of 
horses  for  their  transport.  The  place,  too,  selected  for 
the  synod,  the  city  of  Nicea  in  Bithynia  (which  de- 
rived its  name  from  Victory)  was  appropriate  to  the 
occasion.  As  soon,  then,  as  the  imperial  injunction 
was  generally  made  known,  all  with  the  utmost  celerity 

hastened  to  obey  it." "The  number 

of  bishops  exceeded  two  hundred  and  fifty,  while  that 
of  the  presbytei-8  and  deacons  in  their  train,  and  the 
crowd  of  acolytes  and  other  attendants  was  altogether 
beyond  computation. 

"  Of  these  ministers  of  God  some  were  very  distin- 
guished by  wisdom  and  eloquence,  others  by  the  gravity 
of  their  lives  and  by  patient  fortitude  of  character,  while 
others  again  united  in  themselves  all  these  graces.  There 
were  among  them  men  whose  years  demanded  the  tribute 
of  respect  and  veneration.  Others  were  younger,  and  in 
the  prime  of  bodily  and  mental  vigor ;  and  some  had  but 
recently  entered  on  the  course  of  their  ministry.  For 
the  maintenance  of  all  a  sumptuous  provision  was  daily 
furnished  by  the  Emperor's  command. 

"  Now  when  the  appointed  day  arrived  on  which  the 

*  Eu8eb.    Life  of  Constantine,  Book  ITI.  chap.  v.  et  seq. 


104  THE  PAPACY. 

council  met  for  the  final  solution  of  the  question  in  dis- 
pute each  member  attended  to  deliver  his  judgment  in 
the  central  building  of  the  palace.  On  each  side  of  the 
interior  of  this  were  many  seats  disposed  in  order,  which 
were  occupied  by  those  who  had  been  invited  to  attend, 
according  to  their  rank.  As  soon,  then,  as  the  whole 
assembly  had  seated  themselves  with  becoming  gravity, 
a  general  silence  prevailed  in  expectation  of  the  Emper- 
or's arrival.  And  first  of  all,  three  of  his  immediate  fam- 
ily entered  in  succession,  and  others  also  preceded  his  ap- 
proach, not  of  the  soldiers  or  guai-ds  who  usually  accom- 
panied him,  but  only  friends,  who  avowed  the  faith  of 
Christ.  And  now  all  rising  at  the  signal  which  indicated 
the  Emperor's  entrance,  at  last  he  himself  proceeded 
through  the  midst  of  the  assembly  like  some  heavenly 
messenger  of  God.  .  .  .  As  soon  as  he  had  advanced 
to  the  upper  end  of  the  seats,  at  first  he  remained  stand- 
ing, and  when  a  low  chair  of  wrought  gold  had  been  set 
for  him,  he  waited  until  the  bishops  had  beckoned  to 
him,  and  then  sat  down,  and  after  him  the  whole  assem- 
bly did  the  same. 

"  The  bishop  who  occicpiecl  the  chief  place  in  the 
right  division  of  the  assembly  then  rose,  and,  addressing 
the  Emperor,  delivered  a  concise  speech.*' 

This  account  shows  that  it  was  the  Emperor  who 
convoked  the  council,  and  gave  formal  orders  to  that 
effect,  and  that  he  occupied  the  place  of  president  in  the 
assembly.  Doubtless  he  had  no  ecclesiastical  right  to 
convoke  this  council ;  yet  while  the  direct  intervention 
of  the  emperors  in  the  convocation  of  councils  in  the 
first  centuries  does  not  prove  that  they  had  any  eccles- 
iastical rights,  it  proves,  at  least,  that  the  Church  did 
not  then  possess  any  central  power  that  could  call  all 
the  bishops  together.  Otherwise  the  Christian  emperors 
would  have  addressed  that  authority,  and  every  thing 


THE  PAPACY.  105 

undertaken  by  them  Avithout  that  authority  would  have 
been  null  and  void. 

The  bishop  who  occupied  the  highest  place  in  the 
Nicene  Council  had  only  the  first  place  on  the  right  of 
the  Emperor.  Constantine  was  placed  in  the  middle,  at 
the  end  of  the  hall,  and  upon  a  separate  seat.  What 
bishop  occupied  the  first  place,  Eusebius  does  not  say ; 
which  leads  one  to  think  it  was  himself.  The  historian 
Socrates  maintains,  in  fact,  that  it  was  really  Eusebius, 
Bishop  of  Ca3sarea  in  Palestine.  This  bishopric  was  one 
of  the  most  important  of  the  East,  and  the  first  in  Pales- 
tine since  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem. 

In  the  commencement  of  his  Life  of  Constantine,  Eu- 
sebius tlms  expresses  himself:  "  I  myself  have  recently 
addressed  eulogies  to  the  victorious  prince,  seated  in 
the  assembly  of  God's  ministers."  If  these  words  are 
not  a  demonstrative  proof,  they  nevertheless  give  great 
probability  to  the  statement  of  Socrates. 

But  whether  it  be  Eusebius  of  CiBsarea,  or  Eustathius 
of  Antioch,  as  Theodoret  affirms,*  or  Alexander  of  Alex- 
andria, as  Nicetas  f  maintains,  after  Theodore  of  Mopsu- 
estia,  is  of  small  account.  Thus  much  is  certain,  that 
the  envoys  of  the  Roman  Bishop  did  not  preside.  This 
is  a  fact  admitted  by  all  historians  worthy  of  credence. 
We  must  come  down  to  Gelasius  of  Cyzicus  to  learn  that 
the  Bishop  of  Rome  presided  at  the  Council  of  Nicea 
in  the  person  of  Hosius  of  Cordova,  his  deputy.  In  the 
first  place,  Ilosius  was  not  the  delegate  of  the  Bishop 
of  Rome ;  he  takes  this  title  neither  in  the  Acts  of  the 
Council  nor  elsewhere.  The  Bishop  of  Rome  was  only 
represented  by  the  priests  Vitus  and  Vincent,  and  not 
by  Hosius.  Thus,  even  if  Hosius  had  presided  over  the 
Council,  this  fact  Avould  prove  nothing  in  favour  of  the 
pretended  authority.     But  it  is  certain  that  Hosius  had 

♦  Thendni-pt,  Iii«t.  Keel.  Tidok  I.  cli.  vii. 

+  Nicet.  Theaaur.  Kd  oi  tLodox,  Book  V.  ch.  vii. 


106  THE  PAPACY. 

not  that  honour,  and  that  the  ecclesiastical  presidence 
of  the  assembly  was  in  the  Bishops  of  the  great  Sees  of 
Alexandi-ia,  Antioch,  and  Caesarea  of  Palestine,  while 
the  Emperor  himself  had  the  civil  presidency. 

After  having  heard  the  eulogies  of  the  first  bishop  of 
the  assembly,  Constantino  made  an  address  in  which  he 
said  that  he  had  convoked  all  the  bishops  to  labor  for 
peace,  and  he  entreated  them  to  secure  it  to  the  Christ- 
ian world.  When  he  had  finished,  he  invited  the  Pre- 
sidents OF  THE  Council  to  speak.  There  were,  there- 
fore, several  j^residents.  With  this  declaration  before 
us  of  Eusebius,*  who  was  an  eye-witness — a  declaration 
that  nothing  contradicts — can  it  reasonably  be  contend- 
ed that  the  Council  was  presided  over  by  the  Bishop  of 
Rome,  in  the  person  of  Hosius  his  proxy  ?  What  fact 
can  authorize  such  an  assertion,  diametrically  opposed 
to  the  authoritative  and  positive  testimony  of  Eusebius  ? 

This  learned  historian  has  accurately  traced  the  func- 
tions of  Constantine.  From  the  time  the  bishops  took 
the  floor,  animated  discussions  arose.  "  The  Emperor," 
continues  Eusebius,+  "  gave  patient  audience  to  all  alike, 
and  received  every  proposition  with  steadfast  attention, 
and  by  occasionally  assisting  the  argument  of  each  party 
in  turn,  he  gradually  disposed  even  the  most  vehement 
disputants  to  a  reconciliation.  At  the  same  time,  by 
the  affability  of  his  address  to  all,  and  his  use  of  the 
Greek  language,  (with  which  he  was  not  altogether  un- 
acquainted,) he  appeared  in  a  truly  attractive  and  ami- 
able light,  persuading  some,  convincing  others  by  his 
reasonings,  praising  those  who  spoke  well,  and  urging 
all  to  unity  of  sentiment,  until  at  last  he  succeeded  in 
bringing  them  to  one  mind  and  judgment  respecting 
every  disputed  question." 

Constantine  convoked  the  council  and  presided  over 

•  Euseb.  Life  of  ConstenUne,  Book  III.  chap.  xiii.  t  Ibid. 


THE  PAPACY.  107 

it.  These  are  txoo  facts  which  no  one  in  good  faith 
can  contest.  A  third  fact,  not  less  unquestionable,  is 
that  it  was  he  who  promulgated  its  decrees.  To  es- 
tablish this,  it  is  sufficient  to  translate  the  following  pas- 
sages of  the  letter  that  he  addressed  to  all  the  bishops 
who  had  not  attended  the  assembly,  "  in  order,"  writes 
Eusebius,*  "to  assure  them  of  what  had  been  done.'* 
It  is  Eusebius  himself  who  has  preserved  this  letter  for 
us: 

"  CONSTANTINTJS    AuGUSTITS  TO  THE   ChURCHES  : 

"  Having  had  full  proof  in  the  general  prosperity  of 
the  empire,  how  great  the  favour  of  God  has  been  toward 
us,  I  have  judged  that  it  ought  to  be  the  first  object  of 
my  endeavours,  that  unity  of  faith,  sincerity  of  love,  and 
community  of  feeling  in  regajd  to  the  worship  of  Al- 
mighty God,  might  be  j)reserved  among  the  highly  fa- 
vored multitude  who  compose  the  Catholic  Church :  and 
inasmuch  as  this  object  could  not  be  effectually  and  cer- 
tainly secured,  unless  all,  or  at  least  the  greater  number 
of  the  bishops  were  to  meet  together,  and  a  discussion 
of  all  particulars  relating  to  our  most  holy  religion  to 
take  place ;  for  this  reason  as  numerous  an  assembly  as 
possible  has  been  convened,  at  which  I  myself  was  pres- 
ent, as  one  among  yourselves,  (and  far  be  it  from  me  to 
deny  that  which  is  my  greatest  joy,  that  I  am  your  fel- 
low-servant,) and  every  question  received  due  and  full 
examination,  until  that  judgment  which  God,  who  sees 
all  things,  could  approve,  and  which  tended  to  unity  and 
concord,  was  brought  to  light,  so  that  no  room  was  left 
for  further  discussion  or  controversy  in  relation  to  the 
faith." 

After  this  preamble,  which  is  of  itself  significant,  Con- 
stantine  publishes  the  decree  of  the  Council,  upon  the 
celebration  of  Easter.     He  explains  the  reasons  for  it  and 

•  Life  of  Constantine,  Book  III.  ch.  xvl.  and  xvil. 


108  THE  PAPACY. 

recommends  its  observance.  Before  dismissing  the 
bishops,  Constantine  again  addressed  them,  exhorting 
them  to  maintain  peace  among  themselves.  He  par- 
ticularly recommends  "  those  in  high  places  not  to  raise 
themselves  above  their  inferiors  in  rank ;  for,"  he  adds, 
"it  belongs  to  God  only  to  judge  the  virtue  and  supe- 
riority of  each  one."*  He  gave  them  some  further  ad- 
vice, and  then  permitted  them  to  return  to  their  churches. 
They  all  withdrew  joyfully,  ascribing  to  the  intervention 
of  the  Emperor  the  peace  that  had  been  established  be- 
tween those  who  had  differed  in  opinion. 

In  respect  to  the  most  serious  question  that  had  been 
discussed  in  the  Council — that  of  Arianism — Constantine 
wrote  of  it  to  Egypt,  where  the  discussion  had  birth, 
*''•  confirming ^^''  writes  Eusebius,  "and  sanctioning  the 
decrees  of  the  Council  on  this  subject."! 

Thus  nothing  is  wanting  in  the  intervention  of  Con- 
stantine at  Nicea.  It  is  he  who  convokes  the  Council, 
he  Vt'ho  presides,  and  he  Avho  confirms  the  decrees.  Eu- 
sebius, a  contemporaneous  historian,  an  eye-witness  of 
the  events,  who  took  part  in  the  Council,  positively  as- 
serts it ;  while  subsequent  historians,  all  worthy  of  confi- 
dence— Socrates,  Sozomen,  and  Theodoret — bear  witness 
to  the  fidelity  of  his  recital. 

Gelasius  of  Cyzicus,  author  of  a  romance  founded  upon 
the  Council  of  Nicea,  who  lived  in  the  fifth  century,  is 
the  first,  as  we  have  said,  to  make  mention  of  the  Bish- 
op of  Rome  in  the  convocation  and  presidency  of  the 
Council  of  Nicea.  His  mistake  was  propagated  in  the 
East,  and  the  sixth  oroneral  council  in  the  seventh  cen- 
tury  did  not  protest  against  it  when  uttered  in  its  pres- 
ence. But  it  will  be  admitted  that  the  erronous  asser- 
tion of  a  writer  who  entirely  contradicts  history  and  the 
clearest  traditions,  cannot  be  received  as  truth  because 

♦  Euseb.  Life  of  Constantine,  Book  III.  cli.  xxl. 
t  Euseb.  Life  of  Constantine,  Book  IIL  ch.  xxtii. 


THE  PAPACY.  lOd 

a  council  held  at  a  much  later  period  did  not  protest 
against  it,  when,  even  had  it  been  competent,  it  was  not 
called  to  pronounce  upon  that  question.  It  is  not  pos- 
sible, then,  honestly  to  oppose  such  proofs  to  the  multi- 
plied evidences  of  contemporaneous  writers,  and  to  that 
of  the  Council  itself,  which,  in  its  letters,  never  speaks 
of  the  intervention  of  the  Bishop  of  Rome'. 

It  is  certain  that  Constantine  did  not  claim  any  ecclesi- 
astical rights  for  himself;  that  he  only  presided  at  the 
Council  in  order  to  assure  liberty  of  discussion,  and  that 
he  left  the  decisions  to  episcopal  judgment.  But  it  is 
nevertheless  true  that  he  convoked  the  Council,  that  he 
presided,  that  he  confirmed  its  decrees ;  that  under  him 
there  were  several  bishops  preside?its  /  that  the  delegates 
of  the  Bishop  of  Rome  did  not  preside;  that  Hosius, 
who  the  first  signed  the  acts  of  the  Council,  was  not  the 
delegate  of  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  whatever  Gelasius  of 
Cyzicus  may  say,  whose  testimony  is  worth  nothing, 
even  by  the  avowal  of  the  most  learned  of  the  Roman 
theologians.* 

"What  now  was  the  intervention  of  the  Bishop  of 
Rome  in  the  second  oecumenical  council  ?    Nothing. 

The  Council  was  convoked  by  the  Emperor  Theodo- 
sius,  (a.d.  381,)  who  did  not  even  ask  the  opinion  of  the 
Bishop  of  Rome.  That  Bishop,  Damasus,  did  not  even 
send  legates  to  it,  nor  did  any  other  western  bishop  take 
part  in  it.  The  Council  was  composed  of  one  hundred 
and  fifty  members,  among  whom  we  distinguish  such 
men  as  St.  Gregory  Nazianzen,  St.  Gregory  of  Nyssa, 

•  See  the  Judfrment  given  by  the  Jesuit  Feller  upon  this  historian :  "  A  Greek 
author  of  the  fifth  century,  who  wrote  the  History  of  the  Nicene  (7ou7W»7,  held  In 
825.  This  history  is  only  a  novel  in  the  opinion  op  the  best  critics — at  least,  In 
many  respects,  he  is  at  variance  with  the  documents  and  relations  most  worthy  of 
belief."  Like  a  good  Ultramontane,  Feller  affirms  that  Gelasius  had  excellent  motives, 
and  it  is  this  which  has  made  him  embellish  his  history  a  little.  Thus,  ac- 
cording to  Feller,  Gelasius  has  lied,  but  his  falsehoods  are  excusable  because  of  hU 
intentions,  and  because  his  motives  were  good.  Feller  was  faithful  to  the  spirit 
of  his  Company. 


110  THE  PAPACY. 

St.  Peter  of  Sebaste,  St.  Amphilochius  of  Iconium,  and 
Sfe  Cyril  of  Jerus^ilem.  It  was  presided  over  by  St. 
Meletius  of  Antioch. 

For  a  long  time  there  had  been  a  schism  at  Antioch. 
That  city  had  two  bishops,  Meletius  and  Paulinas.  The 
Bishop  of  Rome  was  in  communion  with  the  latter,  and 
consequently  regarded  Meletius  as  schismatic,  which 
nevertheless  did  not  prevent  liis  being  regarded  as  a 
saint  by  the  Western  churches  as  well  as  those  in  the 
East.  The  second  cecumenical  -council  was  therefore 
under  the  presidency  of  a  bishop  who  was  not  in  com- 
munion with  Rome.  Meletius  died  during  the  sitting  of 
the  council.  Those  who  were  well  known  for  eloquence 
among  the  Fathers  pronounced  his  eulogy.  There  re- 
mains only  the  discourse  of  St.  Gregory  of  Nyssa.  The 
faithful  vied  with  each  other  in  lavishing  marks  of  their 
veneration  for  the  holy  Bishop  of  Antioch;  he  was  re- 
garded by  all  as  a  saint,  and  when  his  body  was  trans- 
ported to  Antioch  the  journey  was  an  uninterrupted 
ovation. 

After  the  death  of  St.  Meletius,  St.  Gregory  Nazi- 
anzen  presided.  The  assembly  did  not  recognize  Paul- 
inus  as  the  legitimate  Bishop  of  Antioch,  although  he 
was  in  communion  with  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  and  they 
paid  no  heed  to  a  compromise,  by  the  teims  of  which 
the  survivor  Meletius  or  Paulinus  was  to  be  recognized 
as  bishop  by  all  the  Catholics.  They  accordingly  chose 
St.  Flavianus  to  succeed  Meletius,  and,  excepting  the 
partisans  of  Paulinus,  the  Church  of  Antioch  supported 
this  choice. 

St,  Gregory  Nazianzen  having  obtained  permission 
to  resign  his  see  of  Constantinople,  was  succeeded  as 
president  of  the  council,  successively  by  Timothy  of 
Alexandria  and  Nectarius  of  Constantinople.  These 
presidents  had  no  relations  with  the  Bishop  of  Rome. 

Nevertheless  the  council  enacted  important  dogmatic 


THE  PAPACY.  Ill 

decrees,  and  its  decisions  mingled  with  those  of  the 
Council  of  Nicea  in  the  formula  of  the  creed  ;  moreover, 
it  changed  the  order  of  the  ecclesiastical  hierarchy  by- 
giving  to  the  Bishop  of  Constantinople  the  second  place 
in  the  Church,  and  by  placing  after  him  the  Bishops  of 
Alexandria,  Antioch,  and  Jerusalem.  It  enacted  besides 
a  great  number  of  disciplinary  canons  which  were  adopt- 
ed by  the  whole  Church.* 

The  year  following  the  Council  of  Constantinople,  the 
Emperor  Gratianus  assembled  another  at  Rome.  Pauii- 
nus  of  Antioch  was  there.  He  was  there  sustained  in  his 
opposition  to  St.  Flavianus,  who  was  nevertheless  recog- 
nized as  the  legitimate  bishop  by  the  majority  of  the 
provinces  that  depended  upon  the  patriarchate.  The 
"West  had  raised  an  outcry  against  the  East,  for  having 
decided  important  matters  without  the  concurrence  of 
the  West.  But  aside  from  the  legitimacy  of  Flavianus, 
all  the  other  acts  of  the  Council  were  now  concurred  in, 
and  the  Council  of  Constantinople  was  universally  con- 
sidered as  oecumenical,  although  neither  convoked,  nor 
presided  over,  nor  yet  confirmed  by  the  Bishop  of 
Rome. 

In  view  of  such  facts,  what  becomes  of  the  pretensions 
of  the  Bishop  of  Rome  to  an  absolute  autocracy  in  the 
Chui-ch?  He  claims,  to-day,  that  all  jurisdiction  comes 
from  him,  and  here  is  a  council  presided  by  a  holy  bishop 
with  whom  Rome  is  not  in  communion  promulgating 
dogmatic  and  the  most  important  disciplinarian  decrees ; 
and  this  council  is  one  of  those  which  St.  Gregory  the 
Great  revered  as  one  of  the  four  gospels. 

The  third  oecumenical  council  held  at  Ephesus  (431) 
was  convoked  by  the  Emperor  Theodosius  II.  and  his 

•  See  the  Acts  of  the  Council  in  Father  Labbe's  Collection ;  Ecclesiastical  Histories 
of  Socrates,  Sozomen,  and  Theodoret;  the  Works  of  St.  Gregory  of  Nyssa  and  of 
St.  Gregory  Nazianzen,  etc. 

t  See  Ecclesiastical  Histwiea  of  Sozomen  and  of  Theodoret ;  the  Letters  of  St 
Jerome  and  of  St.  Ambrose ;  the  Collection  qf  the  Councils  by  Labbe. 


112  THE  PAPACY. 

colleague ;  both  of  them  signed  the  letter  of  convocation 
addressed,  as  was  customary,  to  the  metropolitans  of  each 
province.  "The  troubles  of  the  Church,"  they  say,* 
"have  made  us  think  it  indispensable  to  convoke  the 
bishops  of  the  whole  world.  In  consequence,  your  Holi- 
ness will  make  arrangements  to  present  yourself  at  Eph- 
esus,  at  the  Pentecost,  and  to  bring  with  you  such  of  the 
bishops  as  your  Holiness  may  judge  convenient,"  etc. 

We  read  in  the  acts  of  the  council  that  St.  Cyiil  was 
%\iQ  first,  as  occupying  the  place  of  Celestine,  Bishop  of 
Rome ;  but  as  Fleury  remarks,f  "  He  might  as  well  have 
presided  by  right  of  the  dignity  of  his  see."  This  re- 
flection is  quite  just.  Nevertheless,  since  the  second 
oecumenical  council  had  given  the  second  place  in  the 
episcopate  to  the  Bishop  of  Constantinople,  Nestorius 
might  have  disputed  the  presidency  of  the  assembly  with 
his  antagonist,  Cyril.  Cyril  had,  therefore,  a  good  rea- 
son to  come  to  an  understanding  with  Celestine,  Bishop 
of  Rome,  in  order  that  the  heretic  they  had  assembled 
to  condemn  should  not  preside  over  them. 

We  can  thus  understand  why  the  Bishop  of  Alexandria 
thought  fit  to  appear  at  the  council  with  the  prerogatives 
of  the  Bishop  of  Rome ;  but  it  would  be  wrong  to  con- 
clude that  he  was  the  legate  of  that  bishop,  who  was  re- 
presented by  tAVO  Western  bishops  and  a  Roman  priest. 
In  none  of  the  acts  of  the  council  does  Cyril  mention  his 
title  of  legate  of  the  Bishop  of  Rome ;  and  when  the  dis- 
cussion was  about  him,  he  called  to  the  chair  not  the 
delegates  of  the  Roman  Bishop,  but  the  Bishop  of  Jerusa- 
lem, who  was  next  to  him  in  rank,-since  the  Bishop  of 
Antioch  was  not  at  the  council. 

After  having  read  the  Nicene  Creed,  a  dogmatic  letter 
was  read  from  St.  Cyril  to  Nestorius,  and  the  bishops 

♦  See  Works  of  St.  Cyril  of  Alexandria ;  Collection  of  the  Councils,  by*  Labbe. 
Eccl.  Hist,  of  Socrates, 
t  Fleury,  Eccl.  Hist.  Book  XXV.  cIj.  xxxtU. 


THE  PAPACY,  113 

present  adopted  it  as  the  expression  of  their  faitli.  They 
next  read  a  letter  in  which  Nestorius  set  forth  his  doc- 
trine :  it  was  condemned.  Juvenal  of  Jerusalem  propos- 
ed to  read  the  letter  of  the  very  holy  Archbishop  of 
Rome  to  Nestorius ;  then  was  read  the  third  dogmatic 
letter  of  St.  Cyril ;  this  was  the  synodal  letter  with  the 
twelve  anathemas.  It  was  declared  that  the  doctrine  of 
the  Bishop  of  Rome  and  that  of  St.  Cyril  were  agree- 
able to  the  Nicene  Creed. 

The  testimony  of  the  fathers  in  the  East  and  "West 
was  then  opposed  to  the  errours  of  Nestorius.  There 
was  read  a  letter  written  by  the  Bishop  of  Carthage  in 
the  name  of  the  African  bishops,  who  could  not  be  pre- 
sent at  the  council,  and  of  whom  St.  Cyril  was  the  dele- 
gate. That  was  approved.  Finally  the  sentence  was 
pronounced  and  signed  by  all  the  bishops.  St.  Cyril 
signed  thus :  "  Cyril,  Bishop  of  Alexandria,  I  have  sub- 
scribed, judging  with  the  Council."  The  other  bishops 
adopted  the  same  form.  It  must  be  observed  that  St. 
Cyril  did  not  sign  as  representative  of  the  Bishop  of 
Rome.  If  he  had  consented  to  use  the  delegated  pow- 
ers of  Celestine,  it  was  simply  to  be  prepared  in  case 
Nestorius  should  have  wished  to  dispute  his  precedence. 
Consequently  that  delegation  had  not  the  importance 
that  Romish  theologians  delight  in  ascribing  to  it. 

The  Bishop  of  Antioch  had  not  arrived  when  the  con- 
demnation of  Nestorius  was  pronounced.  They  pretended 
that  Cyril  was  judge  in  his  own  cause,  against  the  Bish- 
op of  Constantinople.  The  Emperor  declared  in  favour 
of  the  latter,  and  his  party  claimed  that  the  discussion 
should  be  reopened.  It  was  at  this  time  that  the  Bish- 
op of  Rome  sent  three  legates  to  represent  him.  They 
were  bearers  of  a  letter  which  commenced  thus :  "  The 
assembly  of  the  bishops  manifests  the  presence  of  the 
Holy  Spirit ;  for  a  council  is  holy  and  should  be  vener- 
ated,  as   representing  a  numerous  assembly  of  Apos- 


114  THE  PAPACY. 

ties.  They  were  never  abandoned  by  the  Master  whom 
they  were  ordained  to  preach.  He  taught  by  them,  and 
told  them  what  they  should  teach,,  and  he  declared  that 
it  was  he  who  was  heard  through  his  apostles.  This  charge 
to  teach  has  been  transmitted  to  all  the  bishops  alike, 
we  all  possess  it  by  right  of  inheritance,  we  all  who  an- 
nounce in  the  place  of  the  apostles^  the  name  of  the 
Lord  in  divers  countries  of  the  world,  according  to  his 
word :  '  Go  teach  all  nations.''  You  must  observe,  my 
brethren,  we  Jiave  received  a  general  order^  and  that 
Jesus  Christ  willed  we  should  all  execute  it  in  discharg- 
ing this  duty.  We  should  all  participate  in  the  labors 
of  those  to  whom  we  have  all  succeeded."  A  Pope 
writing  thus  to  a  council  was  very  far  removed  from 
the  theories  of  modem  Papacy.  Celestine's  letter  was 
approved  by  the  assembly,  which  in  its  enthusiasm  cried 
out,  "Celestinus  the  new  Paul!  Cyril  the  new  Paul! 
Celestinus,  defender  of  the  faith!  Celestinus,  who 
agrees  with  the  council!  The  whole  council  renders 
thanks  to  Celestinus!  Celestinus  and  Cyril  are  one! 
The  faith  of  the  council  is  one !  It  is  that  of  the  whole 
earth  !" 

Celestine  and  Cyril  were  put  in  the  same  category  as 
defenders  of  the  Catholic  faith.  Neither  had  any  author- 
ity except  through  the  conformity  of  their  doctrine  with 
that  of  the  counciL  Instead  of  considering  Celestine  as 
having  inherited  a  universal  authority  from  St.  Peter^ 
they  compare  him  to  St.  Paul.,  the  Doctor-Apostle. 

The  legates  examined  the  Acts  of  the  Council,  and 
declared  that  they  regarded  them  as  canonical.,  "  since," 
they  said,  "  the  Bishops  of  the  East  and  West  have  taken 
part  in  the  council,  in  person  or  by  proxy."  It  was  not, 
then,  because  the  Bishop  of  Rome  had  directed  or  con- 
firmed it. 

The  council,  in  its  synodical  letter  addressed  to  the 
Emperor,  relies  upon  the  adhesion  of  the  Bishops  of  the 


TEE   PAPACY.  116 

West^  of  whom  Pope  Celestine  was  the  interpreter,  to 
prove  that  its  sentence  against  Nestorius  was  canonical 

In  view  of  these  facts  and  this  doctrine,  it  will  be  ad- 
mitted that  St.  Cyril  might  have  presided  at  the  coun- 
cil without  any  mandate  from  the  Pope ;  that  if  he  re- 
joiced that  he  represented  Celestine,  it  was  only  because 
he  thereby  took  precedence  of  Nestorius,  in  spite  of  the 
canon  of  the  Council  of  Constantinople,  which  gave  to 
Nestorius  the  first  rank  after  the  Bishop  of  ~Rome ;  and 
that  the  three  deputies  of  the  Pope  did  not  go  to  Ephe- 
8us  to  direct  the  assembly  or  confirm  it,  but  to  convey 
the  adhesion  of  the  Western  bishops  assembled  in  coun- 
cil by  Celestine. 

It  is  false,  therefore,  to  say  that  the  Pope  presided  at 
the  council  by  St.  Cyril,  who  in  such  case  would  have 
been  his  legate.  It  is  one  thing  to  yield  for  a  particu- 
lar reason  the  honours  attached  by  the  Church  to  the 
title  of  first  bishop,  and  quite  another  to  delegate  the 
right  to  preside  at  an  oecumenical  council.  The  position 
of  legate  of  the  Bishop  of  Rome  did  not  carry,  with  it 
the  right  to  preside,  as  we  see  in  councils  where  the 
deputies  of  that  bishop  were  present,  but  did  not  pre- 
side. The  prerogatives  of  first  bishop  delegated  to  St. 
Cyril,  gave  him  precedence  over  Nestorius — in  case  that 
heretic  had  chosen  to  insist  on  presiding  over  the  Coun- 
cil of  Ephesus,  by  virtue  of  the  third  canon  of  the  Coun- 
cil of  Constantinople.  The  Romish  theologians  have, 
therefore,  grossly  misunderstood  the  fact,  of  which  they 
would  make  a  weapon  against  the  Catholic  doctrine. 
They  have  not  observed  that  even  after  the  arrival  of 
the  legates  of  the  Bishop  of  Rome  at  Ephesus,  when  St. 
Cyril  did  not  preside  at  the  council,  it  was  Juvenal, 
Bishop  of  Jerusalem,  who  had  that  honour.  The  Bishop 
of  Antioch  having  taken  sides  with  Nestorius,  and  not 
attending  the  assemblies,  the  right  to  preside  fell  upon 
the  Bishop  of  Jerusalem ;  since,  according  to  the  hier- 


116  THE  PAPACY. 

archy  established  by  the  Councils  of  Nicea  and  Con- 
stantinople, he  was  fifth  in  order.  This  fact  alone  is 
strong  proof  against  the  opinion  that  attributes  to  the 
Bishop  of  Rome  the  right  to  preside  at  councils  either 
in  person  or  by  proxy.  Had  he  been  present,  and  if  the 
council  had  had  no  reason  for  putting  him  on  his  trial,  or 
excluding  him,  he  would  without  doubt  have  presided, 
in  virtue  of  his  ecclesiastical  title  of  first  Bishop  ,•  but 
when  he  caused  himself  to  be  represented  there,  his 
deputies  had  no  right  to  preside,  and  in  fact  never  did 
preside.  The  Bishops  of  Rome  themselves  knew  so  well 
that  they  had  not  this  right,  that  they  oftenest  delegated 
simple  priests  or  deacons,  who  could  not  properly  preside 
in  a  council  of  bishops. 

The  Acts  of  the  Fourth  GEcumenical  Council,  held  at 
Chalcedon  in  451,  are  not  favourable  to  the  Papal  sys- 
tem, whatever  may  be  said  by  Romish  theologians. 

The  council  was  convoked  by  the  Emperor  Marcia- 
nus,*  who  gave  notice  of  it  to  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  St. 
Leo.  The  Empress  Pulcheria  also  wrote  to  him,  and 
said  that  it  had  pleased  the  very  pious  Emperor,  her 
husband,  to  assemble  the  Eastern  bishops  in  council, 
in  order  to  consider  the  necessities  of  the  Catholic  faith. 
She  entreats  him  (the  Bishop  of  Rome)  to  give  his  con- 
sent, in  order  that  its  decisions  may  be  according  to 
rule.  It  was,  in  fact,  just  and  necessary  to  demand  the 
adhesion  of  the  West,  so  that  the  council  might  be  oecu- 
menical St.  Leo  replied  that  the  doubts  which  had 
been  raised  concerning  the  orthodox  faith  made  a  coun- 
cil necessary ;  consequently,  the  Emperor  Marcianus  and 
Valentinian  his  colleague,  addressed  letters  of  convoca- 
tion to  all  the  bishops. 

It  must  be  remarked  that  St.  Leo  only  consented  to 
the  convocation  of  the  council     He,  therefore,  believed 

♦  All  the  documents  to  which  we  refer  In  this  account,  may  be  found  In  Labbe's 
CoUecUoo  of  the  Councils.    See  also,  the  works  of  St.  Leo. 


THE   PAPACY.  117 

neither  in  his  right  to  convoke  it,  nor  to  terminate  the 
discussions  himself,  by  virtue  of  his  authority.  His  let- 
ters to  Marcianus,  to  Pulcheria,  and  to  the  Fathers  of 
the  council,  leave  no  doubt  of  this. 

This  preliminary  fact  is  of  great  importance. 

Leo  had  requested  that  the  council  should  take  place 
in  Italy  ;  but  the  Emperor  refused  this,  and  convoked  it 
at  Nicea  and  afterward  Chalcedon.  In  nearly  all  its 
sessions  the  council  recognizes  having  been  convoked 
by  the  most  pious  Emperors,  and  never  mentions  the 
Bishop  of  Rome  in  this  connection.  A  Roman  council, 
under  Pope  Gelasius,  asserts  that  the  Council  of  Chalce- 
don was  assembled  by  the  intervention  of  the  Emperor 
Marcianus,  and  of  Anatolius,  Bishop  of  Constantinople. 
The  original  conception  was  in  fact  theirs;  yet,  as  St, 
Leo  consented  to  it,  his  prerogatives  txsjirst  bishop  were 
allowed  him,  as  they  should  have  been.  Consequently, 
he  sent  to  Chalcedon  his  legates,  who  were,  Boniface, 
one  of  his  fellow-priests  of  the  city  of  Rome — as  he  says 
in  several  of  his  letters  to  Marcianus — Paschasinus, 
Bishop  of  Sicily,  Bishop  Julian,  and  Lucentius. 

"  Let  the  brethren,"  said  he,  in  his  letter  to  the  Fa- 
thers of  the  council,  "  believe  that  by  them  I  preside  in 
the  council.  I  am  present  amongst  you  in  the  persons 
of  my  vicars.  You  know  from  ancient  tradition  wiiat  we 
believe ;  you  cannot  therefore  doubt  what  we  wish." 

As  this  shows,  St.  Leo  appeals  to  the  old  traditions, 
and  leaves  the  council  to  judge  all  questions  without  in- 
ter}3osing  his  pretended  doctrinal  authority. 

But  does  he  use  the  word  preside  in  its  strictest  sense  ? 

If  we  attentively  examine  the  Transactions  of  the 
Council,  we  see  that  the  delegates  of  the  Emperor  occu- 
pied the  first  place ;  that  the  assembly  had  several  presi- 
dents ;  that  the  legates  of  the  Bishop  of  Rome  and  Ana- 
tolius of  Constantinople  acted  simultaneously  as  ecclesi- 
astical presidents.     Such  was  the  case  in  the  twelfth 


118  THE   PAPACY. 

session  particularly ;  and  accordingly  a  council  of  Sar- 
dinia says,  in  a  letter  addressed  to  the  Emperor  Leo  :* 
"  The  Council  of  Chalcedon  was  presided  over  by  Leo, 
the  very  holy  Archbishop  of  Rome,  in  the  persons  of  his 
legates,  and  by  the  very  holy  and  venerable  Archbishop 
Anatolius." 

Photius,  in  the  seventh  book  of  The  Synods^  desig- 
nates as  pi'esidents  of  the  Council  Anatolius — the  legates 
of  the  Bishops  of  Rome,  the  Bishop  of  Antioch  and  the 
Bishop  of  Jerusalem.  Cedrenus,  Zonarius,  and  Nilus  of 
Rhodes  relate  the  same  thing,  f 

On  the  other  hand,  in  the  report  addressed  to  St.  Leo 
by  the  Fathers  of  the  Council,  we  read  that  the  assembly 
was  presided  over  by  the  delegated  officers  of  the  Em- 
peror. We  must,  therefore, -admit  that  the  Council  of 
Chalcedon  was  held  under  the  same  conditions  as  that 
of  Nicea ;  that  the  civil  authority  held  the  first  place 
there ;  and  that  the  bishops  of  sees  since  called  patri- 
archal presided  together.  We  have  no  difficulty  after 
this  in  admitting  that  the  Bishop  of  Rome  occupied  the 
Jirst  place  among  the  bishops  in  the  persons  of  his  le- 
gates ;  but  it  is  one  thing  to  occupy  the  firet  place  and 
another  thing  to  preside.,  especially  in  the  sense  that 
Romish  theologians  give  to  this  word. 

It  is  an  undeniable  fact  that  the  dogmatic  letter  ad- 
dressed by  St.  Leo  to  the  Fathers  of  the  Council  was 
there  examined  and  approved  for  this  reason  :  that  it 
agreed  with  the  doctrine  of  Celestine  and  Cyril,  confirm- 
ed by  the  Council  of  Ephesus,  When  the  two  letters 
of  St.  Cyril  were  read,  in  the  second  session,  the  '•'•most 
glorious  judges''''  and  all  the  assembly  said:  "Let  there 
now  be  read  the  letter  of  Leo,  most  worthy  in  God, 
Archbishop  of  Royal  and  Ancient  Rome."  At  the  close 
of  the  reading  the  bishops  exclaimed :  "  Such  is  the  faith 

♦  Int.  act.  Cone.  Chalced. 

t  Ced.  Compend.  Hist ;    Zonar.  Annal. ;   Nil.  Rhod.  de  Synod. 


THE  FAPACT.  119 

of  the  Fathers ;  this  ife  the  faith  of  the  Apostles !  We  all 
believe  thus !  Anathema  to  those  who  do  not  thus  be- 
lieve! Peter  has  spoken  by  Leo.  Thus  taught  the 
Apostles.  Leo  teaches  according  to  piety  and  truth ; 
and  thus  has  Cyril  taught."  Some  of  the  bishops  having 
raised  doubts  as  to  the  doctrine  contained  in  St.  Leo's 
letter,  it  was  determined  that  after  five  days,  they 
should  meet  at  the  house  of  Anatoliics,  Bishop  of  Con- 
stantinople, in  order  to  confer  with  him,  and  receive 
further  explanations.  If  such  a  commission  had  been 
given  to  the  legates  of  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  there  is  no 
doubt  that  the  Romish  theologians  would  draw  numer- 
ous conclusions  from  it  in  favour  of  their  system.  But 
the  legates  were  only  caUed  upon  by  Anatolius  to  ex- 
plain certain  Latin  words  that  seemed  obscui-e  to  those 
who  doubted  and  who,  after  the  explanation  of  the  le- 
gates, gave  their  adherence  with  the  others  to  Leo's  let- 
ter. All  that  was  done  in  this  council  in  the  matter  of 
this  letter  proves,  in  the  most  evident  manner,  that  it 
was  not  approved  as  coming  from  a  bishop  having  au- 
thority, but  rather  because  it  agreed  with  traditional 
teachings.  It  suffices  to  glance  through  the  Transac- 
tions, to  find  abundant  evidence  of  this.  Some  Romish 
theologians  can  see  nothing  but  these  words,  "  Peter  has 
spoken  by  Leo,"  as  if  that  expression  could  have  an  Ul- 
tramontane sense,  placed  as  it  is  in  the  midst  of  other 
exclamations,  and  taken  with  a  host  of  other  declara- 
tions, which  give  it  only  the  meaning  we  have  indicated. 

As  those  honorary  titles  which  are  found  in  the  Trans- 
actions of  the  Council,  addressed  to  the  Bishop  of  Rome, 
have  been  much  abused,  we  must  point  out  their  true 
meaning. 

St.  Gregory  the  Great  in  his  letters  against  the  title 
of  oecumenical  bishop  assumed  by  John  the  Faster,  the 
Patriarch  of  Constantinople,  teaches  us  that  the  Coun- 
cil of  Chalcedon  had  offered  this  title  to  the  Bishop  of 


120  THE  PAPACY. 

Rome.  In  fact  we  see,  in  the  Transactions  of  the  Coun- 
cil, that  this  title  was  given  to  him  by  his  legates.  The 
first  of  them  subscribed  to  the  profession  of  faith  in  the 
sixth  session  in  these  terms  : 

"  Paschasinus,  bishop,  vicar  of  his  Lordship  Leo, 
Bishop  of  the  universal  church,  of  the  city  of  Rome, 
president  of  the  Synod.  I  have  ordered,  consented,  and 
signed."  The  other  legates  signed  in  about  the  same 
terms. 

Again  in  the  third  session,  the  legates  in  speaking  of 
St.  Leo,  said :  "  The  holy  and  blessed  Pope  Leo,  head 
of  the  universal  Churchy  endowed  with  the  dignity  of 
the  Apostle  Peter,  who  is  the  foundation  of  the  Church 
and  the  rock  of  faith,"  etc.,  etc. 

In  the  fourth  session,  the  legate  Paschasinus  gave 
also  to  Leo  the  title  of  Pope  of  the  universal  Church. 

The  Fathers  of  the  council  saw  in  these  expressions 
nothing  more  than  an  honorary  title,  which  the  Bishop 
of  Rome,  no  doubt,  desired  the  better  to  determine  his 
superiority  over  the  Bishop  of  Constantinople,  whom 
the  second  oecumenical  council  had  raised  to  the  second 
rank,  and  who  as  bishop  of  the  new  capital  of  the  em- 
pire must  naturally  gain  a  preponderant  influence  in  the 
affairs  of  the  Church,  because  of  his  frequent  relations 
with  the  emperors.  There  is  then  every  reason  to  be- 
lieve that  the  council,  in  order  to  humour  the  jealousy 
of  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  accorded  to  him  the  title  of 
oecumenical  bishop.  It  was  one  way  of  causing  Rome 
to  adopt  the  twenty-eighth  canon,  of  which  we  have 
already  spoken,  and  in  which  was  developed  that  of 
the  second  oecumenical  council,  concerning  the  eleva- 
tion of  the  Bishop  of  Constantinople  to  the  second  rank 
in  the  episcopate.  But  the  Bishops  of  Rome,  if  we  are 
to  believe  St.  Gregory,  their  successor,  regarded  this 
title  as  illegal. 

In  view  of  such  a  decision  by  the  popes  themselves, 


THE   PAPACY.  121 

can  much  importance  be  attached  to  the  words  of  the 
legates,  and  is  it  fair  to  use  them  as  proofs  of  an  author- 
ity, of  which  the  expression  alone  was  condemned  at 
Rome  ?  Let  us  observe,  moreover,  that  the  council  in 
offering  a  title  to  the  Bishops  of  Roipe,  indirectly  de- 
cided that  they  had  no  right  to  it  in  virtue  of  their 
dignity,  and  that  they  should  never  claim  for  this  title 
any  thing  more  than  a  purely  ecclesiastical  value. 

As  for  the  confirmation  of  the  Acts  of  the  Council, 
we  must  observe  two  things :  that  it  was  the  council 
that  confirmed  the  dogmatic  letter  of  St.  Leo,  and  that 
the  Fathers  only  addressed  him  in  order  to  ask  his 
adherence  and  that  of  the  Western  Church.  Leo  refused 
to  admit  the  twenty-eighth  canon,  as  we  have  said ;  yet 
that  did  not  prevent  its  being  universally  admitted  in 
the  West  no  less  than  in  the  East. 

Thus  the  Bishop  of  Rome  did  not  convoke  the  Coun- 
cil of  Chalcedon ;  he  did  not  preside  alone  by  his  depu- 
ties, who  only  had  the  first  place  because  he  M^as  the 
Jirst  bishop  in  virtue  of  the  canons ;  he  did  not  con- 
firm the  council;  and  the  honorary  titles  conferred 
upon  him  prove  nothing  in  favour  of  the  universal  and 
sovereign  authority  that  is  sought  to  be  ascribed  to  the 
Papacy. 

The  accounts  we  have  given  can  leave  no  doubt  as  to 
the  view  which  was  universally  taken  of  the  authority  of 
the  Bishops  of  Rome  in  the  fourth  and  fifth  centuries. 

Yet,  in  order  not  to  leave  unanswered  any  of  the  as- 
sertions of  the  Romish  theologians,  we  will  proceed  to 
examine  the  facts  and  texts  in  which  they  have  sought 
proofs  to  support  their  system. 

The  principal  events  of  the  fourth  and  fifth  centuries 
upon  which  they  rely,  are  those  relating  to  St.  Athana- 
bIus,  to  the  Donatists,  and  to  St.  John  Chrysostom.  Let 
us  consult  the  positive  and  admitted  data  of  history  in 
relation  to  this  subject. 


122  THE  PAPACY. 

One  of  the  results  of  the  sixth  canon  of  Nicea  had 
been  to  give  the  first  rank  in  the  Church  to  the  Bishop 
of  Rome.  Moreover,  by  reason  of  the  circumstances  in 
which  the  West  was  placed,  he  must  be  considered  as 
its  interpreter.  Consequently,  the  following  ecclesias- 
tical rule*  became  a  usage :  that  he  should  always  be 
invited  to  the  oriental  councils  when  they  should  assem- 
ble, and  that  they  should  decide  nothing  without  having 
his  opinion.  This  was  a  just  rule ;  for  the  East,  in  it- 
self, no  more  forms  the  universal  Church  than  the  West ; 
and  the  Bishop  of  Rome  represented  the  entire  West 
at  a  period  when  these  countries  were  overrun  by  bar- 
barians, when  the  bishops  could  not  leave  their  sees  to 
go  to  the  East,  to  testify  in  discussions  in  which  their 
particular  churches  were  not  interested.  This  is  the 
reason  given  by  Sozomen.f  "  Neither  the  Bishop  of  the 
city  of  Rome,"  he  says,  "  nor  any  other  bishop  of  Italy, 
or  of  the  more  distant  provinces,  assembled  at  this  coun- 
cil, (Antioch,)  for  the  Franks  were  then  ravaging  Gaul." 

Paul  of  Constantinople,  and  Athanasius  of  Alexan- 
dria, faithful  to  the  faith  of  Nicea,  being  persecuted 
and  condemned  by  some  of  the  oriental  bishops,  sus- 
tained by  the  imperial  power,  naturally  addressed  them- 
selves to  the  Western  Church,  appealing  to  the  Bishop 
of  Rome,  who  represented  it.  "  The  Bishop  of  the  city 
of  Rome,"  says  Sozomen,J  "  and  all  the  bishops  of  the 
West,  regarded  the  deposition  of  the  orthodox  bishops 
as  an  insult  to  themselves;  for,  from  the  beginning, 
they  had  approved  of  the  Nicene  faith,  and  still  con- 
tinued of  the  same  opinion.  Hence,  they  graciously 
received  Athanasius,  who  went  to  them,  and  they 
claimed  the  right  to  judge  his  cause.  Eusebius  (of  Ni- 
comedia)  was  much  grieved  at  this,  and  wrote  of  it  to 
Julius." 

•  Socrates,  Hist  EccL  Lib.  II.  c.  xvii.        +  Sozom.  Hist.  Eccl.  Lib.  III.  c  tL 
t  Sozom.  Hut.  Eccl.  Lib.  UI.  c.  viL 


THE   PAPACY.  123 

Eusebius  of  Nicomedia  represented  the  Eastern  Ari- 
ans,  and  it  was  the  Bishop  of  Rome  who  repi-esented 
the  Western  bishops.  That  bishop  was  Julius.  He  as- 
sumed the  defence  of  the  persecuted  bishops,  sustained 
them  against  the  Eastern  bishops,  and,  using  thus  the 
prerogatives  of  his  see,*  recognized  as  legitimate  bish- 
ops those  whom  the  Arians  had  unjustly  deposed. 
The  latter  assembled  at  Antioch,  and  addressed  a  let- 
ter to  Julius,  in  which  they  sharply  told  him  that  it 
was  no  more  his  business  to  meddle  with  those  whom 
they  had  expelled  than  it  had  been  theirs  to  concern 
themselves  with  the  affair  of  Novatus,  whom  he  had  driv- 
en from  the  Church.  Sozomenf  gives  further  particulars 
of  this  letter.  We  learn  from  him  that  the  oriental 
bishops  said,  "  That  the  Church  of  Rome  was  glorious, 
because  it  had  been  the  abode  of  the  Apostles,  and  that 
fi-om  the  beginning,  she  had  been  the  metropolis  of 
piety,  although  the  teachers  of  the  faith  had  come  to 
her  from  the  East.  Yet  it  did  not  appear  just  to  them, 
that  they  (the  Eastern  churches)  should  be  regarded  as 
inferior,  because  they  were  surpassed  in  number  and  in 
magnificence  by  a  church  to  whom  they  were  superior 
in  virtue  and  courage." 

Julius  did  not  reply  to  them  that  he  was  chief  of  the 
Church  by  divine  right,  but  he  reminds  them  of  the 
ecclesiastical  rule  already  quoted,  in  virtue  of  which  he 
had  the  right  to  he  summoned  and  consulted.  Sozomen 
adds,J  that  "  this  prerogative,  due  to  the  dignity  of 
his  see,  gave  him  the  right  to  take  care  of  all  those 
who  had  appealed  to  him,  seeking  refuge  from  the  per- 
secutions of  the  Arian  faction  of  the  East,  and  that  he 
should  restore  to  each  one  his  church." 

The  pretensions  of  the  Bishop  of  Rome  did  not  ex- 
tend beyond  an  ecclesiastical  prerogative.     The  Eastern 

*  Bocrateg,  Hist  BccL  Lib,  n.  c.  xv.  t  Soeom.  Lib.  IIL  c.  vill. 

%  SoBom.  Lib.  m.  c.  vlll. 


124  THE   PAPACY. 

bishops  would  not  believe  that  Julius  was  the  interpre- 
tei-  of  the  Western  Church,  as  he  claimed  in  the  answer 
which  he  addressed  to  them.* 

For  this  reason  the  bishops  of  that  part  of  the  Catholic 
Church  were  convoked,  that  they  might  decide  between 
the  Eastern  bishops  and  the  Bishop  of  Rome  in  the  case 
of  the  persecuted  bishops— especially  St.  Athanasius. 
That  was  the  object  of  the  Council  of  Sardica,  (a.  d.  347.)  f 
This  fact  alone  is  sufficient  to  prove  that  the  universal 
authority  of  the  Bishop  of  Rome  was  not  then  recog- 
nized, and  that  his  ecclesiastical  jorerogative  was  subordi- 
nate to  the  judgment  of  the  council. 

Julius  wrote  to  the  Council  of  Sardica,  excusing  him- 
self from  personally  responding  to  the  letter  of  convo- 
cation that  had  been  addressed  to  him.  He  sent  two 
priests  and  a  deacon  to  represent  him,  and  the  assembly 
was  presided  over  by  Hosius,  Bishop  of  Cordova. 

The  cause  of  Athanasius  and  that  of  the  other  bishops 
deposed  in  the  East  by  the  Arian  faction,  with  the  sup- 
port of  the  imperial  power,  was  examined.  Their  inno- 
cence and  orthodoxy  were  established,  and  they  were 
confirmed  as  legitimate  bishops  of  their  respective  sees. 
A  council  assembled  at  Rome  by  Julius  had  already  pro. 
nounced  a  similar  sentence,  but  that  had  been  found 
insufficient.  Another  council  of  the  West,  held  at 
Milan,  requested  the  Emperor  Constans  to  make  arrange- 
ment with  his  brother,  who  resided  at  Constantinople,  to 
assemble  the  bishops  of  the  two  empires.  It  was  then 
that  the  two  emperors  convoked  the  Council  of  Sardica, 
where  the  Eastern  clergy  Avere  to  meet  the  Western,  and 
terminate  the  discussion.  The  Arian  bishops,  finding 
themselves  in  the  minority,  pleaded  some  technical  ob- 
jection for  not  attending  the  council,  which  held  its  ses- 


♦  Letter  of  Julius  to  the  Eastern  Bishops,  In  the  Apology  of  SL  Athanasius,  §  26. 
+  Socrat.     Hist.  Eccl.  Lib.  I.  c.  xx. 


THE   PAPACY.  125 

Bions    nevertheless,    under    the   presidency   of  Hosius, 
Bishop  of  Cordova. 

The  Council  of  Sardica  was  neither  convoked  nor 
presided  over  by  the  Bishop  of  Rome.  Nor  was  Hosius 
there  as  his  legate,  as  some  say,  without  being  able  to 
prove  it ;  nor  were  his  delegates  treated  with  any  par- 
ticular honour. 

In  his  letter,  written  to  the  Eastern  bishops,  in  the 
name  of  the  Roman  council,*  Julkis  had  blamed  them 
for  having  judged  Athanasius  and  the  other  bishops,  who 
adhered  to  the  Nicene  Creed,  without  regard  to  the  cus- 
torn  which  had  obtained,  of  deciding  nothing  in  the  East, 
without  referring  to  the  Apostolic  See  of  the  West, 
*'  Are  you  ignorant,"  he  said,  "  that  it  is  the  custom  to 
write  first  to  us  ?"f 

The  Council  of  Sardica  strengthened  that  custom  by 
its  third  canon,  which  was  proposed  in  these  terms  by 
Hosias :  "  If  two  bishops  of  the  same  province  have  a 
discussion,  neither  of  them  shall  choos(3  as  umpire  a  bish- 
op of  another  province.  If  a  bishop  who  has  been  con- 
demned is  so  certain  of  his  beincr  risrlit,  that  he  is  willing: 
to  be  judged  again  in  council — let  us  honor,  if  you 
FIND  IT  WELL  TO  DO  SO,  the  mcuiory  of  the  Apostle  St. 
Peter :  let  those  who  have  examined  the  cause  write  to 
Julius,  Bishop  of  Rome:  if  he  think  well  that  the 
case  have  a  rehearing,  let  him  designate  the  jndgcs  ;  if 
he  think  there  be  no  necessity  for  reviewing,  his  decision 
shall  be  final." 

This  proposition  was  approved  by  the  council,  and  the 
Bishop  Gaudentius  added,  (canon  4th,)  that  during  the  ap- 
peal, no  bishop  should  be  appointed  to  the  place  of  the  one 
deposed,  until  the  Bishop  of  Rome  should  judge  the  case. 

The  council  (Can.  5th,  Greek — 7th  Latin)  prescribed 
the  practice  of  these  appeals  to  Rome. 

*  Athanas.    Apolog.  §  36.  +  Athanas.    Apolog.  §  aj. 


126  THE  PAPACY. 

The  Romish  theologians  exult  in  these  canons.  Yet 
it  is  only  necessary  to  read  them  carefully  to  perceive 
that  they  are  altogether  contrary  to  that  system.  In 
fact,  the  council,  far  from  recognizing  in  the  Bishop  of 
Rome  an  universal  and  divine  authority,  did  not  even 
sanction,  in  any  general  manner,  the  usage  which  had 
grown  up  of  appealing  to  the  Bishop  of  Rome  as  the 
representative  of  the  West.  It  merely  so  decided  for 
certain  particular  cases.  Beside  the  bishops  of  the 
great  sees,  whom  the  Arians  persecuted,  and  whose 
cause  it  was  the  province  of  the  councils  to  judge, 
there  were  many  less  important  bishops  and  priests  in 
the  East,  whose  causes  the  entii-e  Church  could  not  con- 
sider.* 

It  is  these  bishops  that  the  council  refers,  in  the  last 
resort,  to  Julius,  Bishop  of  Rome.  It  does  not  refer 
them  to  the  Bishop  of  Rome  generally,  but  to  Julius. 
Nor  does  it  make  this  rule  obligatory  •  the  appeal  is 
purely  optional;  and  lastly,  the  council  proposes  to 
honour  the  memory  of  St.  Peter  by  granting  to  a  Bishop 
of  Home  a  prerogative  which  it  considers  new  and  ex- 
ceptional. Is  not  such  a  decision  tantamount  to  a 
formal  declaration  that  the  Pope  had  no  legal  rights, 
even  in  the  decision  of  questions  of  discipline  and  the 
general  government  of  the  Church  ?  If  the  council 
had  believed  that  the  Pope  had  any  right  whatever, 
would  it  have  thought  to  do  him  so  great  an  honour  in 
granting  him  a  temporary  prerogative  ? 

The  council  published  its  declarations  in  several  syn- 
odical  letters,!  in  which  are  examined  in  detail  the  cases 
of  St.  Athanasius  and  the  other  orthodox  bishops  per- 
secuted by  the  Arians,  and  unjustly  deprived  by  them 
of  their  sees. 

*  See  the  letter  of  Julius  to  the  Eastern  Bishops  In  the  Apology  of  St.  Athana- 
sius. 

t  Athan.  Apolg.  adv.  Arianos ;  Hilary  of  Poitiers,  Fragments ;   Theodoret,  EccU 
Hist. 


THE   PAPACY.  127 

The  Romish  theologians  quote,  with  an  especial  pride, 
the  synodal  letter  to  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  in  which  the 
following  language  occurs : 

"  And  thou,  beloved  brother,  though  absent  in  body, 
thou  hast  been  with  us  in  spirit,  because  of  thy  desire 
and  the  accord  that  is  between  us.  The  excuse  thou 
hast  given  for  not  taking  part  in  the  council  is  a  good 
one,  and  based  on  necessity ;  for  the  schismatic  wolves 
might,  during  thine  absence,  have  committed  thefts  and 
laid  traps ;  the  heretical  dogs  might  have  yelped,  and, 
in  their  senseless  rage,  have  effected  mischief;  finally, 
the  infernal  serpent  might  have  diffused  the  venom  of 
his  blasphemies.  It  would  have  been  well  and  very 
proper  to  convoke  the  bishops  of  all  the  provinces  at 
the  capital,  that  is  to  say,  at  the  see  of  St.  Peter ;  but 
you  will  learn  from  our  letters  all  that  has  been  done  ; 
and  our  brethren  in  the  priesthood,  Archidamus  and 
Philoxenus,  and  our  son  Leo  the  deacon,  will  make  all 
things  known  to  you  by  word  of  mouth." 

We  have  translated  the  word  cajput  by  capital^  and 
we  believe  that  such  was  the  meaning  of  the  council ; 
for  it  places  it  in  contrast  to  the  word  province  in  tho 
same  phrase.  It  would  have  been  well,  according  to 
the  council,  to  hold  the  assembly  as  Julius  desired,  at 
Rome,  for  the  double  reason  that  Rome  was  the  capital 
of  the  empire,  and  also  the  see  of  St.  Peter. 

The  Romish  theologians  translate  the  word  caput  by 
that  of  chief ;  but  they  do  not  thereby  help  their  cause ; 
for  this  word  signifies  both  head  and  first  in  hierarchal 
order.  That  the  Bishop  of  Rome  is  the  head  of  the 
Church,  as  being  first  bishop  and  holding  the  highest 
see,  we  do  not  deny  ;  that  he  is  the  first  in  the  hierarch- 
al order  established  by  the  Church  everyone  allows; 
what  then  is  the  use  of  translating  illogically  a  text  of 
the  Council  of  Sardica,  for  the  sake  of  propping  up  a 


128  THE    PAPACY. 

system  which  it  really  can  in  no  wise  be  made  to 
favour  ? 

While  endeavouring  to  draw  such  great  advantage 
from  one  word  employed  by  the  Council  of  Sardica, 
these  theologians  have  kept  out  of  sight  the  facts  which 
clearly  appear  from  the  transactions  of  that  holy  as- 
sembly, namely,  that  it  was  convoked  by  the  Emperors 
Constans  and  Constantius — as  the  council  itself  and  all 
the  historians  affirm ;  that  it  was  convoked  in  order  to 
pass  upon  a  decision  rendered  by  the  Pope,  in  a  council 
at  Rome ;  that  Hosius  presided,  and  not  the  legates  ;* 
and  finally,  that,  instead  of  being  itself  confirmed  by 
the  Poi>e,  it  was  the  council  that  confirmed  the  sen- 
tence of  the  Pope,  and  that  granted  him  certain  ecclesi- 
astical privileges,  f 

These  incontrovertible  facts  are  more  significant  than 
a  mistranslated  word  can  be  in  the  question  of  Papal 
authority,  and  give  to  the  appeal  of  St.  Athanasius  its 
true  character. 

Let  us  now  examine  the  case  of  the  Donatists. 

It  is  not  our  purpose  to  explain  in  detail  the  causes  of 
this  schism,  which  so  long  afflicted  the  Church  of  Africa. 
From  the  numerous  facts  connected  with  it,  we  only  in- 
tend to  draw  this  conclusion,  that  both  the  schismatics 
and  the  Catljolics  recognized  in  the  episcopate  the  only 
authority  competent  to  decide  the  questions  that  di- 
vided the  Church.  Hence  the  numerous  councils  that 
were  called  on  both  sides,  and  which  mutually  con- 
demned each  other.  Constantine,  immediately  upon  his 
elevation  to  the  throne,  wrote  to  Csecilianus,  Bishop  of 
Carthage,  to  oflI>r  him  money  and  the  protection  of  his 

*  To  establish  this  fact,  it  is  only  necessary  to  quote  the  first  line  of  the  signa- 
tures of  the  council:  "  Hosius  of  Spain,  Julius  of  Rome,  by  the  Priests  Arcbida- 
mus  and  Philoxenus,"  etc.     St.  Athan.  Apoloj;.  adv.  Arian.  §  50. 

t  St.  Athanasius,  Apol.  adv.  Arian.,  and  History  of  the  Arians  for  the  monks. 
Ek;cl.  Hists.  of  So,-mtes,  Sozomen,  and  TheoUoret.  Acts  of  the  Council  In  Father 
liibbe's  Collection. 


THE   PAPACY.  129 

lieutenants  to  enable  him  to  bring  the  schismatics  to 
order.  The  latter  endeavored  to  justify  themselves  be- 
fore the  prince,  claiming  that  the  bishops  who  had  con- 
demned them  were  judges  in  their  own  cause,  and  pray- 
ing the  Emperor  to  allow  them  to  be  tried  by  bisliops 
from  Gaul,  where  he  then  was.  He  consented,  and 
named  as  judges  three  of  the  most  leai-ned  and  distin- 
guished bishops  of  the  age — Maternus  of  Cologne,  Rhe- 
ticius  of  Autun,  and  Marinas  of  Aries.  He  seat  them 
to  Rome,  to  join  with  Miltiades,  bishop  of  that  city, 
and  Mark,*  in  hearing  the  conflicting  depositions  of 
Caecilianus  and  his  opponents.  Eusebius  has  preserved 
the  letter  which  Constantine  wrote  upon  this  occasion 
to  the  Bishop  of  Rome  and  to  Mark.  We  will  translate 
that  letter,  together  with  an  extract  fj-om  the  petition 
of  the  DonatisLs  to  Constantine.  These  documents  will 
determine  the  character  of  the  appeal  of  the  Donatists, 
and  will  prove  that  the  Romish  tlieologians  are  wrong 
in  citing  it  in  support  of  their  opinions. 

Here  is,  first,  the  extract  preserved  by  St.  Optatus.f 
*'  We  beseech  thee,  O  Constantine  !  most  excellent  em- 
peror, thou  that  comest  from  a  righteous  famOy,  (for  thy 
father  was  not  a  persecutor  like  his  colleagues ;  and 
Gaul  is  free  from  this  crime,)J  since  between  us  bishops 
in  Africa  there  are  dissensions,  we  beseech  thee  let  thy 
piety  give  us  judges  who  are  of  Gaul !" 

In  consequence  of  this  petition,  Constantine  chose  the 
three  bishops  we  have  mentioned,  adding  to  their  num- 
ber the  Bishop  of  Rome  and  Mark,  to  examine  and  give 
judgment  in  the  case.  Constantine  writes  thus  to  the 
two  Roman  judges :  § 

*  It  b  very  generally  admitted  by  the  learned  that  Mark  was  an  Influential  priest, 
who  was  Bishop  of  Rome  after  Sylvester. 

t  St.  Optat.  Book  I.  against  Parmenlanus. 

%  The  Donatists  liere  refer  to  the  crime  of  having  given  up  the  Holy  Scriptures 
durln;;  the  p?rsecuf  ions. 

S  Eoseb.  Eccl.  Hist.  Book  X.  cb.  t. 


130  THE   PAPACY. 

"COnstantine  Augustus,  to  Miltiades,  Bishop  of 
Rome  and  to  Marcus  *  As  many  communicatious  of 
this  kind  have  been  sent  to  me  from  Anulinus,  the  most 
ilhistrious  proconsul  of  Africa,  in  which  it  is  contained 
that  Ciecilianus,  the  Bishop  of  Carthage,  was  accused 
in  many  respects  by  his  colleagues  in  Africa,  and  as  this 
appears  to  be  grievous,  that  in  those  provinces  whicli 
divine  Providence  has  freely  intrusted  to  my  fidelity, 
and  in  which  there  is  a  vast  population,  the  multitude 
are  found  inclining  to  deteriorate,  and  in  a  manner 
divided  into  two  parties,  and  among  others,  that  the 
bishops  were  at  variance  ;  I  have  resolved  that  the  same 
Caecilianus,  together  A\-ith  ten  bishops,  who  appear  to 
accuse  him,  and  ten  others,  whom  he  himself  may  con- 
sider necessary  for  his  cause,  shall  sail  to  Rome.  That 
you  {vfjuov)  being  present  there,  as  also  Reticius,  Mater- 
nus,  and  Marinus,  your  colleagues,  whom  I  have  com- 
manded to  hasten  to  Rome  for  this  purpose,  he  may  be 
heard,  as  you  may  understand  most  consistent  with  the 
most  sacred  law.  And,  indeed,  that  you  may  have  the 
most  perfect  knowledge  of  these  matters,  I  have  subjoined 
to  my  own  epistle  copies  of  the  w^ritings  sent  to  me  by 
Anulinus,  and  sent  them  to  your  aforesaid  colleagues. 
In  which  your  gravity  will  read  and  consider  in  what 

*  This  Mark  has  been  very  troublesome  to  the  Romish  theologians.  If  he  had  not 
been  named  with  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  it  would  have  been  far  easier  to  have  made 
of  the  latter  a  aowreign  judge,  to  whom  the  three  Galilean  bishops  were  added 
merely  from  motives  of  expediency,  and  to  remove  every  pretext  on  which  the 
Donatists  could  oppose  the  sentence.  But  the  bare  name  of  this  Mark  is  sufficient 
to  forbid  that  conclusion.  Baronius  was  so  thoroughly  convinced  of  this,  that  he 
has  tried  to  prove  that  tliere  was  in  this  place  an  errour  of  the  copyist.  He  there- 
fore proposes  to  replace  the  words  «a(  M(tp«(j  by  iepnpxy-  There  are  many  in- 
conveniences attendant  upon  this,  besides  that  of  distorting  Eusebius's  text.  The 
first  is  that  the  word  hierarch  signifies  bishop,  and  Miltiades  is  already  called  by 
Constantine  Bishop  of  Home.  Why  should  he  have  given  him  twice  the  same 
qualification  in  the  superscription  of  his  letter  ?  The  second  is,  that  the  word 
l£IJ<tpX(],  to  mean  bishop,  was  not  yet  in  use,  in  the  fourth  century.  All  the  learned 
oppose  these  reasons  tc  Baronius,  and  call  attention  to  the  further  fact  that  all  the 
manuscripts  clearly  bear  the  words  nai  Mup/coj.  Must  a  text  be  distorted  and  a 
bad  word  introduced  in  order  to  please  the  Rgmish  theologians?  The  end  will  not 
justify  the  means. 


THE   PAPACY.  131 

way  the  aforesaid  cause  may  be  most  accurately  investi- 
gated and  justly  decided,  since  it  does  not  escape  your 
diligence  that  I  show  such  regard  for  the  Holy  Catholic 
Church,  that  I  wish  you,  upon  the  whole,  to  leave  no 
room  for  schism  or  division.  May  the  power  of  the 
great  God  preserve  you  many  years,  most  esteemed." 

From  the  foregoing  documents  we  must  conclude, 
that  the  Donatists  did  not  appeal  to  Rome,  but  to  the 
Emperor ;  that  they  did  not  ask  the  arbitration  of  the 
Bishop  of  Rome,  but  of  the  Galilean  bishops  ;  that  it 
was  the  Emperor  who  added  of  his  own  motion  the 
Bishop  of  Rome  and  Mark  to  the  three  Galilean  bishops 
whom  he  had  chosen.  Is  there  in  all  this  the  sliadow 
of  an  argument  in  favour  of  the.  sovereign  authority  of 
the  Bishop  of  Rome  ?  Could  the  choice  of  the  2^lc((^^ 
seem  important?  Evidently  not,  for  there  is  nothing 
peculiar  in  Constantiue's  choosing  the  city  whither  one 
could  most  easily  go  from  both  Africa  and  Gaul ;  and 
this  choice  explains  why  he  added  Miltiades  and  Mark 
to  the  judges  asked  for  by  the  Donatists.  It  would 
have  been  very  improper  to  send  bishops  to  Rome  to 
judge  an  ecclesiastical  cause,  without  asking  the  inter- 
vention of  those  who  were  at  the  head  of  the  Roman 
Church.  It  is  thus  easy  to  see  why  Constantine  named 
Miltiades  and  Mark  judges  in  the  case  of  the  Donatists, 
although  their  intervention  had  not  been  asked. 

Fifteen  other  Italian  bishops  went  to  Rome  for  this 
atliiir.  The  council  pronounced  in  favor  of  Csecilianus. 
The  Bisliop  of  Rome  having  been  of  the  council,  the  sen- 
tence would  necessarily  have  been  regarded  as  final  if 
his  sovereign  authority  had  been  recognized.  Such  was 
not  the  case. 

The  Donatists  complained  that  the  Galilean  bishops 
whom  they  had  asked  for  were  too  few  in  number  at 
Rome,  and  demanded  a  more  numerous  council,  in 
which  their  cause  should  be  examined  with  more  care. 


132  THE  PAPACY. 

Constantine  convoked  this  council  at  Aries.  He  invit- 
ed there  a  large  number  of  bishops  from  different  prov- 
inces of  his  empire — that  is  to  say,  of  the  West,  for  at 
this  time  he  only  possessed  that  part  of  the  Roman  em- 
pire. Eusebius  has  preserved  Constantine's  letter  to 
the  Bishop  of  Syracuse,  inviting  liim  to  come  to  Aries.* 
This  letter  is  important  as  showing  that  the  judgment 
at  Rome  was  not  considered  final,  and  that  it  was  the 
Emperor  who  convoked  the  Council  of  Aries.  But  the 
Fathers  of  the  council  themselves  say  so  in  their  letter 
to  Sylvester,  Bishop  of  Rome,  who  had  succeeded  Mil- 
tiades.  The  Bishop  of  Rome  sent  thither  as  his  legates, 
the  priests  Claudianus  and  Vitus,  and  the  deacons  Eu- 
genius  and  Cyriacus.  The  council  took  place  in  315,  ten 
years  before  the  great  Council  of  Nicea.  Marinus  of 
Ai'les  presided.  After  confirming  the  sentence  of  the 
Council  of  Rome,  the  bishops  saw  fit  to  make  several 
ordinances,  which  they  sent  to  Sylvester  with  this  let- 
ter: 

"  Marinus,  etc.,  etc.,  to  the  well-beloved  Pope  Sylves- 
ter, eternal  life  in  the  Lord. 

"  United  by  the  bonds  of  mutual  charity  and  in  the 
unity  of  the  Catholic  Church,  our  mother,  from  the  city 
of  Aries,  where  our  most  pious  emperor  has  caused  us 
to  meet,  "We  salute  you,  most  glorious  father,  with  all 
the  respect  which  is  due  to  you. 

"We  have  had  to  do  with  men  both  licentious  and 
most  dangerous  to  our  law  and  tradition  ;  but  thanks  to 
the  power  of  God  icho  is  present  in  our  midst,  and  to 
tradition  and  the  rule  of  truth,  they  have  been  con- 
founded, silenced,  and  rendered  unable  to  carry  out  and 
prove  their  accusations ;  wherefore  by  the  judgment 
of  God  and  the  Church,  who  knows  her  own,  they  have 
been  condemned. 

*  Euscb.   loc.   cit.    Saint  Optatus,  Book  I.      Letters  of  St.  Augustin,  posHm, 
Father  Labbe's  Collect,  of  Galilean  Councils  in  Slrmond. 


THE  PAPACY.  133 

"  Would  to  God,  beloved  brother^  you  had  condescend- 
ed to  be  present  at  this  spectacle  !  We  think  that  the  sen- 
tence given  against  thera  would  have  been  still  more 
overwhelming,  and,  if  you  had  given  judgment  with  us, 
we  would  have  experienced  a  still  greater  joy ;  but  you 
could  not  leave  those  places  where  the  apostles  still  pre- 
side, and  where  their  blood  renders  a  continual  witness 
to  the  glory  of  God. 

"  Well-beloved  brother,  we  have  not  thought  it  neces- 
sary to  confine  ourselves  solely  to  the  business  for  which 
we  assembled,  but  have  also  considered  the  necessities  of 
our  respective  provinces ;  and  we  send  you  our  ordi- 
nances, that  through  you,  who  have  the  greatest  authority^ 
they  may  become  universally  known." 

It  is  generally  claimed  in  the  West,  that  by  these  last 
words,  the  Council  of  Aries  recognized  the  universal  au- 
thority of  the  Bishop  of  Rome.  But  it  is  not  sufficiently 
remembered  that  this  council  was  held  without  any  co- 
operation on  the  part  of  that  bishop  ;  that  he  did  not 
preside  ;  that  in  the  letter  of  the  Fathers,  no  mention  is 
made  of  his  authority,  among  the  motives  that  caused 
them  to  condemn  the  Donatists  ;  that  they  do  not  wait 
for  his  approbation  or  confirmation  in  order  to  proclaim 
their  disciplinarian  ordinances  ;  that  they  merely  apprize 
him  of  them,  in  order  that,  since  in  his  position  of  bish- 
op of  an  apostolic  see  he  had  the  greatest  authority,  he 
might  make  them  known  to  all. 

This  only  proves  that  the  Bishop  of  Rome  was  recog- 
nized as  the  first  in  the  West,  because  of  the  apostolic  au- 
thority and  of  dignity  of  his  see ;  that  he  was  thus  the 
natural  medium  betAveen  the  West  and  the  apostolic  sees 
of  the  East.  To  find  more  than  this  in  the  words  of  the 
Council  of  Aries  would  be  to  distort  them.  It  suffices  to 
notice,  that  this  council,  convoked  without  the  Bishop  of 
Rome,  acted  independently,  and  that  it  confirmed  a  sen- 
tence of  a  council  of  Rome  at  which  the  Pope  presided,  to 


134  THE  PAPACY. 

be  convinced  that  the  papal  authority  as  received  at  this 
day  in  the  West,  was  tlien  unknown. 

It  thus  appears  that  the  Romish  theologians  are  with- 
out a  show  of  reason  when  they  cite  the  appeal  of  the 
Donatists  as  favourable  to  papal  pretensions. 

Let  us  now  examine  the  case  of  St.  John  Chrysostom : 

This  great  Bishop  of  Constantinople  drew  upon  him- 
self the  hatred  of  the  Empress  Eudoxia  and  of  many  bish- 
ops and  other  ecclesiastics,  by  his  firmness  in  maintaining 
the  rules  of  the  purest  discipline.*  His  enemies  were 
supported  by  Theophilus,  Bishop  of  Alexandria.  This 
bishop  had  condemned  some  poor  monks  as  Origenists. 
They  had  come  to  Constantinople  to  seek  for  redress. 
The  famous  question  of  Origenism  was  thus  revived. 
Chrysostom  did  not  think  it  profitable  to  examine  i.t. 
But  Eudoxia,  who  busied  herself  Avith  theological  ques- 
tions more  than  was  becoming  in  a  woman,  took  the  part 
of  the  monks  against  Theophilus,  Avho  was  accordingly 
commanded  to  appear  at  Constantinople.  But  before 
Theophilus  arrived  there,  Cln-ysostom  incurred  the  hatred 
of  the  Empress,  and  she  determined  upon  using  Theophi- 
lus to  avenge  her  of  that  great  man,  who  had  not  known 
how  to  yield  a  servile  submission  to  her  caprices. 

It  was  not  long  before  Theophilus,  who  had  been  sum- 
moned to  Constantinople  under  accusation  of  guilt,  bore 
himself  as  the  judge  of  that  innocent  archbishop,  who 
out  of  respect  for  the  canons,  liad  refused  to  judge  him. 
He  conspired  with  certain  bishops  who  were  courtiers ; 
and  he  corrupted  sundry  ecclesiastics  by  money  and 
promises.  Sustained  by  the  court,  he,  with  tliirty-five 
other  bishops  assembled  in  a  place  called  The  Oak,  near 
Chalcedon,    (a.d.   403.)      These    bishops  were  at  once 

♦  The  facts  we  are  about  to  analyze  all  rest  upon  the  authority  of  Palladius  the 
historian,  a  disciple  of  St.  John  Chrysostom  ;  the  Ecclesiastical  Histories  of  Socrates, 
Sozomen,  and  Theodoret ;  the  works  of  St.  John  Chrysostom  ;  and  upon  the  official 
documents  inserted  either  in  the  work  of  Baronius  or  in  the  Collection  of  Councils  by 
Father  Labbe. 


THE  PAPACY.  135 

prosecutors,  witnesses,  and  judges.  They  had  not  dared 
to  assemble  at  Constantinople,  where  the  broad  light  of 
day  would  have  fallen  upon  their  calumnies,  and  where 
they  had  cause  to  fear  the  faithful  people  who  venerated 
their  pastor.  Of  the  thirty-five  bishops,  twenty-nine 
were  of  Egypt.  While  tlie  enemies  of  Chrysostom  as- 
sembled at  The  Oak.,  the  faithful  bishops,  forty  in  num- 
ber, had  gathered  around  Clirysostom,  at  the  call  of  the 
Emperor,  to  judge  Theophilus.  Chrysostom  was  con- 
ferring witii  these  bishops,  when  two  messengers  from 
the  pseudo-council  of  The  Oak  came  to  summon  liim  to 
appear  there.  The  holy  bishop  refused  to  recognize  his 
enemies  as  judges.  They  nevertheless  proceeded  to  de- 
pose him,  and  wrote  to  the  Emperor  Arcadius,  that  it 
was  his  duty  to  banish  him  and  even  to  punish  him  for 
the  crime  of  high  treason,  in  having  in  his  sermons  in- 
sulted the  Empress  Eudoxia.  This  amounted  to  a  de- 
mand for  his  death.  The  whole  people  rose  against  the 
conventicle  of  The  Oak  in  favour  of  Chrysostom,  who 
would  not  leave  the  city  without  being  forced  to  do  so. 
The  Emperor  then  commanded  one  of  his  counts  to  expel 
him,  using  violence  even,  if  necessary.  The  saint  took 
advantage  of  a  moment  when  his  faithful  children  had 
somewhat  relaxed  their  vigilance,  to  leave  his  house,  and 
give  himself  up  to  the  soldiers  commissioned  to  arrest 
him.  lie  was  })ut  in  ward  until  evening,  and  was 
conveyed  by  night  to  the  port.  But  in  spite  of  these 
precautions,  the  people  found  out  that  their  pastor  was 
taken  from  them.  A  great  crowd  followed  him  weeping. 
Chrysostom  was  put  on  board  of  a  ship,  and  hurried  off 
before  daylight,  and  he  was  landed  on  the  coast  of 
Bithvnia. 

Such  gross  injustice  gave  universal  umbrage.  Several 
of  tlie  enemies  of  the  saint  repented  of  their  calumnies ; 
the  people  besieged  the  churches  and  filled  them  with 
their  clamour.    A  dreadful  earthquake  at  this  time  filled 


136  THE  PAPACY. 

Eudoxia,  the  first  cause  of  the  crime,  with  terror.  She 
attributed  it  to  her  injustice,  and  hastened  to  recall 
Chrysostom.  The  people  received  him  in  triumph,  and 
his  enemies  hid  themselves  or  fled.  He  asked  a  council 
before  which  to  justify  himself.  Theophilus,  afraid  to 
face  incorruptible  judges,  fled  to  Egypt.  But  Eudoxia, 
having  recovered  from  her  first  fright,  renewed  her  per- 
secutions against  Chrysostom,  who,  with  apostolic  free- 
dom, preached  against  her  numerous  acts  of  injustice. 

Theophilus  was  written  to,  to  return,  that  the  intrigues 
of  the  pseudo-council  of  The  Oak  might  be  cari-ied 
out.  But  the  Bishop  of  Alexandria  contented  himself 
by  sending  perfidious  counsels  from  a  distance.  A  new 
council  was  assembled  ;  forty-two  bishops  pronounced 
in  favour  of  the  saint.  The  others,  influenced  by  the 
court,  accepted  as  legitimate  his  deposition  by  the  pseu- 
do-council of  TTie  Oak,  and  decided  that  Chrysostom, 
having  been  deposed  by  a  council,  and  having  reassumed 
his  see  without  having  been  reinstated  by  another 
council,  was  guilty  and  deserved  to  be  deposed. 

Chrysostom,  indeed,  had  asked  for  a  council  immedi- 
ately after  his  return  to  Constantinople  ;  the  Emperor 
had  granted  it ;  but  Eudoxia  had  given  contrary  orders, 
for  she  did  not  desire  a  regular  council,  but  an  assembly 
composed  of  the  enemies  of  the  saintly  Archbishop.  She 
carried  her  point,  and  caused  Chrysostom  to  be  con- 
demned for  not  having  been  reinstated  by  a  council, 
when  she  herself  had  rendered  that  council  impossible. 

Renewed  persecutions  followed  this  unjust  sentence. 
It  was  then  that  Chrysostom  addressed  himself  to  the 
"West,  represented  by  the  bishops  of  the  most  important 
sees,  to  set  before  them  the  violence  and  injustice  of 
which  he  had  been  the  victim.  The  object  of  his  letter 
was  to  warn  the  Western  bishops  against  the  calumnies 
that  his  enemies  might  perhaps  already  have  published 
against  him,  and  to  entreat  them  not  to  take  from  him 


THE  PAPACY.  137 

their  charity  and  their  communion.  He  addressed  his  let- 
ter to  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  who  was  then  (a.d.  404)  Inno- 
cent to  Venerius  of  Milan,  and  to  Chromatins  of  Aquileia. 
This  fact,  which  is  not  denied,  suffices  to  prove  that  he 
did  not  appeal  to  the  Pope  as  a  chief  having  authority 
over  all  the  Church.  He  added  in  his  letter,  that  he  was 
disposed  to  defend  himself,  provided  his  adversaries 
would  give  him  a  fair  trial ;  which  is  a  further  proof 
that  he  did  not  carry  his  case  to  Rome  as  to  a  superior 
tribunal.  It  was  natural  that  the  Bishop  of  Constanti- 
nople, persecuted  in  the  East  by  unworthy  bishops  and 
by  the  imperial  power,  should  look  to  the  Western 
Church  for  assistance.  The  bishops  who  had  declared 
for  Chrysostom,  as  well  as  the  people  of  Constantinople, 
wrote  also  to  the  Western  Church ;  their  letters  were  car- 
ried to  Rome  by  four  bishops  and  two  deacons.  They 
believed  that  Theophilus  of  Alexandria  would  endeavour 
to  seduce  the  bishops  of  the  West,  and  they  were  not 
mistaken.  In  fact,  a  messenger  from  Theophilus  had  ai*. 
rived  in  Rome  some  days  before  the  deputies  from  Con- 
stantinople, and  had  handed  to  Innocent  a  letter  in  which, 
without  entering  into  any  details,  the  Bishop  of  Alexan- 
dria said  that  he  had  deposed  Chrysostom.  Some  time 
after,  he  sent  to  Rome  the  acts  of  the  pseudo-council  at 
The  Oak,  Innocent  declared  that  he  would  remain  in 
communion  with  Chrysostom  and  Theophilus  until  such 
time  as  a  council  composed  of  Eastern  and  Western  bish- 
ops should  pronounce  canonically  upon  the  case.  He  ac- 
cordingly requested  the  Emperor  of  the  West  to  come  to 
an  understanding  with  his  brother  Arcadius,  Emperor  of 
the  East,  in  order  that  this  council  might  be  assembled. 
Honorius  did,  in  fact,  write  to  this  effect ;  but  the  court  at 
Constantinople  wished  to  be  revenged  upon  Chrysostom, 
and  not  to  have  him  regularly  tried.  The  holy  Archbish- 
op, after  suffering  most  unjust  treatment,  was  accordingly 
again  exiled.  Arsacius  was  placed  in  his  see,  without  the 


138  THE   PAPACY. 

observance  of  the  canonical  forms.  He  died  the  follow- 
ing year,  and  was  quite  as  uncanonically  succeeded  by 
Atticus. 

These  renewed  persecutions  did  not  cool  the  zeal  of 
St.  Chrysostom's  friends.  Several  of  them  took  refuge 
in  Rome  and  brought  to  Innocent  a  letter  from  those  of 
the  clergy  and  jjeople  of  Constantinople  who  remained 
faithful  to  their  bishop.  Innocent  answered,  consoling 
them  and  endeavouring  to  inspire  them  with  the  hope  that 
God  would  soon  deliver  them  by  means  of  the  oecumen- 
ical council  which  he  was  labouring  to  have  assembled. 

It  was  to  a  lawful  council  that  Chrysostom  and  his 
friends  had  appealed  ;  and  Innocent,  far  from  assuming 
the  right  to  determine  the  affair  by  his  own  authority, 
placed  all  his  hopes  as  well  in  the  council. 

These  facts  speak  loudly,  and  need  no  comment. 

Other  bishops  of  the  West  were  of  the  same  opinion. 
The  Bishop  of  Aquileia,  in  particular,  joined  his  efforts  to 
those  of  Innocent,  in  order  to  obtain  from  Ilonorius  the 
convocation  of  a  council  in  tlio  West  that  should  con- 
sult upon  the  means  of  terminating  the  affair  that  so 
justly  engaged  their  thoughts.  The  Italian  bishops  as- 
sembled by  order  of  Honorius  and  gave  as  their  opinion, 
that  an  (ecumenical  council  should  be  assembled  at 
Thessalonica,  whither  tlie  bishops  of  the  East  and  West 
could  go  with  equal  facility  ;  and  that  such  a  council  was 
necessary  in  order  to  close  the  discussion  by  a  final  award. 

They  prayed  him  to  write  to  this  effect  to  Arcadius. 
Honorius  wrote  to  ask  Innocent  to  send  him  five  bishops, 
two  priests  and  one  deacon,  to  carry  the  letter  which  he 
should  v/rite  to  his  brother.  It  was  the  third  that  he 
wrote  him  on  the  same  subject. 

In  view  of  the  difficulties  raised  by  Arcadius  against 
the  convocation  of  a  council,  this  was  certainly  a  proper 
occasion  for  the  Pope  of  Rome  to  settle  the  question 
himself,  in  virtue  of  his  sovereign  authority,  if  he  had 


THE  PAPACY.  139 

possessed  any.  But  neither  Chrysostora  nor  his  friends 
of  the  East,  nor  the  bishops  of  the  West,  nor  the  Pope 
himself  dreamed  of  this  mode,  to  them  unknown.  They 
all  were  satisfied  to  ask  of  the  emperors  a  council,  which 
alone  had  the  authority  to  give  a  final  decision. 

The  deputies  who  bore  the  letter  of  Honorius  were 
likewise  intrusted  with  several  other  letters,  from  Inno- 
cent of  Rome,  from  Chomatius  of  Aquileia  from  Yene- 
rius  of  Milan,  and  other  bishops  of  Italy.  Moreover, 
they  were  bearers  of  a  note  from  the  council  of  Italy,  to 
the  effect  that  Chrysostom  should  in  the  first  place  be 
reinstated  in  his  see  and  in  communion  with  the  Eastern 
bishops,  before  appearing  at  the  oecumenical  council, 
where  his  cause  was  to  be  decided. 

Arcadius  did  not  even  allow  the  deputies  to  land  at 
Constantinople,  but  sent  them  to  Thrace  where  they 
were  treated  as  prisoners.  The  letters  they  carried  were 
taken  from  them  by  force,  and  they  were  cast  upon  a 
rotten  vessel  to  be  returned  to  the  West.  Four  Eastern 
bishops  Avho  had  accompanied  them  were  roughly  hand- 
led and  exiled  to  the  most  distant  parts  of  the  empire. 
Many  Eastern  bishops  then  became  the  victims  of  the 
most  cruel  treatment,  and  Arcadius  entered  upon  an  or- 
ganized persecution  against  all  those  who  had  remained 
faithful  to  Chrysostom. 

Palladius  relates  that  the  Roman  Church  and  the  West- 
ern council  resolved  thereupon  to  communicate  no  longer 
with  the  partisans  of  Atticus  and  Theophilus,  imtil  it 
should  please  God  to  provide  the  means  of  assembling 
the  oecumenical  council.  Theodoret  also  relates  that  the 
bishops  of  Europe  acted  thus.  Some  Eastern  churches 
followed  the  same  rule  ;  but  other  churches,  and  that  of 
Africa  in  particular,  did  not  separate  themselves  from 
the  communion  of  Chrysostom's  adversaries,  although 
taking  the  part  of  this  holy  patriarch,  and  hoping  that 
justice  would  be  done  to  him. 


140  THE  PAPACY. 

This  was  the  state  of  things  whea  St.  John  Chrysos- 
tom  died.  From  his  remote  place  of  exile,  a  short  time 
before  he  quitted  this  life,  he  had  written  to  Innocent, 
thanking  him  for  the  zeal  he  had  displayed  in  his  cause. 
He  wrote  similar  letters  to  the  Bishop  of  Milan  and 
other  bishops  who  had  openly  declared  for  him. 

The  entire  East  rendered  justice  to  the  great  Arch- 
bishop after  his  death,  recognizing  him  as  a  saint,  which 
recognition  restored  the  communion  between  all  the 
Eastern  and  Western  churches. 

Such  is  the  exact  analysis  of  facts  i-elating  to  the  affair 
of  St.  Chrysostom.  It  appears  from  it,  that  the  saint 
did  not  appeal  to  Rome ;  that  he  sought  in  the  Western 
Church  a  support  against  his  enemies  of  the  East ;  that 
the  Western  bishops  only  acted  cdllectively  to  cause  his 
case  to  be  determined  ;  that  they  only  ascribed  to  a  gen- 
eral council  authority  to  pronounce  final  sentence ;  that 
they  only  claimed  for  themselves  the  right  to  separate 
themselves  from  the  communion  of  such  as  they  deemed 
accomplices  of  injustice ;  and  lastly,  that  Innocent  of 
Rome  acted  with  no  more  authority  in  all  these  discus- 
sions than  the  Bishop  of  Milan  or  of  Aquileia. 

From  these  facts,  is  it  not  clear  that  the  case  of  St. 
John  Chrysostom,  far  from  furnishing  evidence  in  favour 
of  the  sovereign  authority  of  the  Papacy,  proves  precise- 
ly the  contrary  ? 

Some  Romish  theologians  having  asserted,  in  the  face 
of  all  historical  documents,  that  Chrysostom  had  ap- 
pealed to  Rome  for  the  purpose  of  suspending  the  pro- 
ceedings against  him  by  the  interposition  of  the  papal 
authority,  we  will  remark,  that,  according  to  St.  Chrysos- 
tom himself,  he  addressed  his  protest,  not  only  to  the 
Bishop  of  Rome,  but  to  other  bishops.  "  I  have  also 
addressed  this  same  letter,"  he  says,  "to  Venerius, 
Bishop  of  Milan,  and  to  Chromatins,  Bishop  of  Aquileia." 

Here  is  what  he  asks  of  his  colleagues  in  tlie  West : 


THE  PAPACY.  141 

"  I  pray  you,  therefore,  to  write  letters  declaring  null  and 
void  all  that  has  been  done  against  me,  granting  me 
inter-communion  with  you  as  in  the  past,  since  I  am 
condemned  without  a  hearing,  and  since  lam  ready  to 
justify  myself  before  any  impartial  tribunal.'''' 

What  was  the  tribunal  to  which  he  appealed  ?  The 
Bishop  of  Rome  affirms  that  there  was  no  other  except  a 
council ;  he  expresses  himself  substantially  to  this  effect 
in  his  letter  to  the  clergy  and  people  of  Constantinople : 
"  From  thes  friendly  letter  that  Germanus  the  priest  and 
Cassianus  the  deacon  have  handed  to  me  from  you,  I 
have  gathered  with  an  anxious  mind  the  scene  of  woe 
you  describe,  and  the  afflictions  and  the  trial  that  the 
faith   has   endured   among  you.     This  is  an  evil  for 

which  there  is  no  other  remedy  than  patience 

I  derive  from  the  beginning  of  your  affectionate  epistle 

the  consolation  which  I  needed Innocent 

bishops  are  driven  from  their  sees.  John,  our  brother 
and  colleague.,  and  your  bishop,  has  been  the  first  to  suffer 
from  this  violence,  without  having  been  heard,  and  with- 
out our  knowing  of  what  he  is  accused.  ...  As  re- 
gards the  canons,  we  declare  that  only  those  made  at 

the  Council  of  Nicea  should  be  recognized 

Nevertheless,  what  remedy  can  be  applied  to  so  great 
an  evil  ?  TJiere  is  no  other  than  to  convoke  a  council. 
.  .  .  Until  we  are  able  to  obtain  the  convocation  of 
a  couficil,  we  cannot  do  better  than  to  await  from  the 
will  of  God  and  our  Saviour  Jesus  Christ  the  remedy 
of  these  evils.  .  .  .  We  are  continually  devising 
means  to  assemble  a  general  council,  where  all  dissen- 
sions may  be  set  at  rest  at  the  command  of  God.  Let 
us  then  wait,  intrenched  within  the  bulwark  of  patience." 

We  could  multiply  such  texts  ;  but  to  what  purpose, 
when  all  the  facts  demonstrate  the  errour  of  these  Ro. 
mish  writers  ? 

We  will  now  endeavour  to  learn,  with  the  aid  of  doo- 


142  THE  PAPACY. 

trinal  texts,  what  has  been  the  teaching  of  the  Fathers 
of  the  fourth  and  fifth  centuries  respecting  the  authority 
of  the  Bishops  of  Rome. 

After  studying  profoundly  and  critically,  and  without 
bias  or  prejudice  the  historical  and  dogmatic  remains  of 
the  first  centuries  of  the  Church,  we  cannot  read  with- 
out pain  the  works  of  Romish  theologians  in  favour  of  the 
papal  authority. 

We  have  had  the  patience  to  read  most  of  those  regard- 
ed as  authorities,  such  as  Bellarmin,  Rocaberti,  Andre 
Duval,  Zaccaria,  and  many  of  the  most  renowned  of  the 
modern  theologians  who  have  taken  these  as  their  guides 
— such  as  Gerdil,  Perrone,  Passaglia.  We  have  read  the 
principal  Avorks  of  the  modern  Galileans — those,  namely, 
of  the  seventeenth  and  eighteenth  centuries — and  particu- 
larly the  works  of  Bossuet,  Nicole,  Tournely,  and  La 
Chambre.  We  are  convinced  that  the  latter  have  bor- 
rowed from  the  Ultramontanes  those  of  their  texts  which 
appear  to  have  the  greatest  weight,  limiting  the  sense 
to  a  primacy  of  divine  right  and  a  restricted  authority 
of  the  Pope,  while  the  others  extend  it  to  an  absolute 
authority  and  infallibility.  Among  them  all,  we  have 
remarked,  first,  a  crowd  of  broken  and  corrupted  texts 
distorted  from  their  true  sense,  and  isolated  from  the 
context  expressly  to  give  them  a  false  interpretation. 
We  have  remarked,  secondly,  that  the  texts  of  each 
particular  Father  are  isolated  from  other  texts  of 
the  same  Father  touching  the  same  point  of  doctrine, 
although  the  last  may  modify  or  absolutely  destroy  the 
sense  attributed  to  the  first.  We  have  remarked,  thirdlj^ 
that  these  writers  deduce  from  these  texts,  consequences 
clearly  fiilse,  and  which  do  not  logically  follow  from 
them.  Of  this  we  shall  give  two  examples,  among  the 
many  we  could  point  out. 

Launoy,    as    we   have   already   mentioned,   has  ana- 
lyzed the  Catholic  tradition  upon  the  interpretation  of 


THE  PAPACY.  143 

the  text,  "  Thou  art  Peter,''  etc.  He  has  found  but  seven- 
teen Fathers  or  Doctors  of  the  Church  who  have  applied 
to  St.  Peter  the  word  the  stone,  (l^apierre  ;)  he  has  pointed 
out  more  than  forty  of  tliem,  who  have  understood  this 
expression  as  applied  to  the  confession  of  faith  made  by 
St.  Peter,  that  is  to  say,  to  the  divinity  of  Jesus  Christ. 
The  Ultramontanes  cannot  dispute  this,  but  they  pretend 
that  by  giving  the  faith  of  Peter  as  the  foundation  of  the 
Churcli,  tlie  Lord  necessarily  granted  to  that  Apostle  not 
only  an  indefectible  fliith,  but  also  inf\illibility,  and  that 
these  gifts  have  passed  to  his  successors. 

Now,  all  the  Fathers  of  the  Church,  quoted  for  the 
latter  interpretation,  have  meant  by  the  confession  of 
St.  Peter,  onhj  the  belief  he  had  corfessed,  his  objective 
faith,  or  the  object  of  that  faith,  and  not  the  subjective 
faith  or  the  personal  adherence  that  he  had  given  to  it. 
The  belief  confessed  by  St.  Peter  being  the  divinity  of 
Jesus  Christ,  the  Fathers  quoted  have  interpreted  the 
text,  "  Thou  art  Peter,"  etc.,  in  this  sense,  that  the 
divinity  of  Jesus  Christ  is  the  rock  upon  which  the 
Church  rests.  All  speak  ^Vi  the  clearest  terms  to  this 
effect.  Not  one  of  them  speaks  of  any  privilege  Avhat- 
ever  granted  to  St.  'PqXqv  personally — and  a  fortiori,  not 
of  any  privilege  descended  to  the  Bishops  of  Rome  as 
his  successors.  Thus,  even  had  St.  Peter  received  any 
prerogative  from  Jesus  Christ,  it  would  be  necessary  to 
prove  that  this  prerogative  was  not  i^eA'soncd ;  but  the 
Ultramontanes  dispose  of  that  difficulty  Avith  extreme 
facility.  They  simply  affirm  that  the  privileges  grant- 
ed to  St.  Peter  belong  to  his  successors  ;  they  rest  these 
privileges  upon  texts  which  say  nothing  at  all  about 
them ;  they  affirm,  on  the  strength  of  these  falsified 
texts,  that  the  Bishops  of  Rome  are  the  only  successors 
of  St.  Peter,  because  that  Apostle  died  Bishop  of  Rome. 

What  they  say  upon  this  last  point  is  the  second  ex- 
ample that  we  shall  give  of  their  false  reasoning.     They 


144  THE  PAPACY. 

rely  chiefly  upon  St.  Irenasus,  Tertullian,  and  Eusebius 
to  prove  this. 

Now,  Eusebius  expresses  himself  thus :  "  After  the 
martyrdom  of  Paul  and  Peter,  Linus  was  the  first  that 
received  the  episcopate  at  Rome."*      "  Clement  also, 
who  was  appointed  the  third  Bishop  of  this  Church, 
(Rome.)"f     "After  Anencletus   (or  Cletus)   had   been 
Bishop  of  Rome  twelve  years  he  was  succeeded  by  Cle- 
ment."!     "After  Euaristus  had  completed  the  eighth 
year  as  Bishop  of  Rome,  he  was  succeeded  in  the  epis- 
copal office  by  Alexander,  the  fifth  in  succession  from 
Peter  and  Paul."§    Thus  it  makes  no  difference  to  Eu- 
sebius whether  he  places  Paul  before  Peter,  or  Peter 
before  Paul,  when  he  speaks  of  the  foundation  of  the 
Church  of  Rome.     The  bishops  are  the  successors  of 
the  one  as  well  as  of  the  other,  and  neither  of  them  is 
counted  among  the  Bishops  of  Rome.     St.  Irenseus  has 
nowhere  said  that  Peter  had  been  Bishop  of  Rome ;  he 
even  asserts  the  contrary  in  a  most  incontestable  man- 
ner.     He  expresses  himself  in  substance  as  follows  : 
"The  blessed  Apostles,  (Peter  and  Paul,)  when  they 
founded  and  organized  the  Church  of  Rome,  gave  to 
Linus  the  episcopate,  and  the  care  of  governing  that 

Church Anencletus  succeeded  Linus ;  after 

Anencletus,  Clement  was  the  third,  since  the  Apostles, 
who  had  charge  of  this  episcopate."! 

St.  Peter  and  St.  Paul  founded  and  organized  the 
Church  of  Rome,  but  it  was  Linus  who  was  made  \\\q,  first 
Mishop^  even  during  the  life  of  the  Apostles.  Observe 
that  Peter  and  Paul  are  here  coordinated  by  the  holy 
doctor.  Thus  if  we  prove  the  episcopate  of  St.  Peter  at 
Rome  by  the  text  quoted,  we  also  prove  that  of  St. 
Paul  by  the  same  text.  Rome  would  then  have  had 
two  Apostle- Bishops  at  one  and  the  same  time. 

•  Eccl.  Hist.  Book  ni.'ch.  2.  +  Book  HI.  ch.  4.  }  Book  HI.  ch.  16. 

5  Book  IV.  ch.  1.  I  St.  Iren.  agt.  the  Heret.  Book  HI.  ch.  8. 


THE  PAPACY.  145 

Tertullian  mentions  the  Bishops  of  Rome  in  the  same 
order  as  St.  Irenseus,  and  designates  Linus  as  the  first, 
and  Anencletus  as  the  second.*  He  only  claims  for 
Rome  the  succession  of  St.  Peter,  hy  ordination.,  from 
St.  Clement,  third  bishop  of  that  city.  "Let  those," 
he  said,  "  who  boast  of  dating  back  to  apostolic  times, 
show  by  the  succession  of  their  bishops,  that  they  de- 
rive their  orgin  from  an  Apostle  or  an  apostolic  man, 
as  the  Church  of  Smyrna  proves  that  Polycarp  was  or- 
dained by  John,  or  as  the  Church  of  Rome  shows  that 
Clement  was  ordained  by  Peter."f  We  might  infer 
from  this,  that  Linus  and  Anencletus  were  ordained  by 
St.  Paul,  who  in  that  case,  had  organized  the  Roman 
Church  before  Peter. 

When  Tertullian  says  that  St.  Peter  sat  on  the  chair 
of  Rome.,  he  does  not  mean  that  he  was  Bishop.,  but  that 
he  taught  there ;  for  the  word  chair  signifies  nothing 
more  than  teaching  in  the  writings  of  the  Fathers.  If 
he  had  meant  otherwise,  he  would  have  made  Linus 
the  second  bishop,  not  the  first. 

Thus  the  evidence  brought  by  Romish  theologians  to 
prove  the  episcopate  of  St.  Peter  at  Rome,  tells  against 
them,  and  only  establishes  the  fact  that  St.  Peter  and 
St.  VsiVil  fou7ided  the  Roman  Church,  and  consequently 
that  this  Church  is  Apostolic  in  its  origin,  which  no  one 
denies.  Besides  these  historical  evidences  which  con- 
found them,  the  Romish  theologians  have  invoked  the 
letter  of  Firmilianus,  already  quoted,  and  those  few 
texts  from  St.  Cyprian,  the  true  meaning  of  which  we 
have  already  explained.  As  regards  the  letter  of  Fir- 
milianus, it  is  only  necessary  to  read  it,  in  order  to 
understand  its  true  sense,  and  to  wonder  that  they 
should  have  ventured  to  appeal  to  its  evidence.  As  to 
St.  Cyprian,  we  will  now  in  a  general  way  sum  up  his 

*  Tertull.  agt.  Marcion,  Book  IV.         t  Tertullian -de  Prescription,  chap,  xxzit 


146  THE   PAPACY. 

.doctrine,  in  order  to  make  apparent  the  abuse  that  has 
been  made  of  it. 

St.  Cyprian*  proves :  First,  that  the  Church  of  Rome 
was  built  upon  St.  Peter  as  the  type  and  representative 
of  the  unity  of  the  Church ;  secondly,  that  the  Church 
of  Rome  is  the  chair  of  Peter  ;  thirdly,  that  the  Church 
of  Rome  is  the  principal  church  from  which  sacerdotal 
unity  proceeded ;  fourthly,  that  treachery  and  errour 
cannot  gain  access  to  the  Roman  Church. 

From  this,  the  Romish  theologians  argue  that  the 
Popes,  as  successors  of  St.  Peter,  are  the  centre  of  uni- 
ty, and  that  beyond  them  and  their  Church,  all  is  schism. 

Such  are  not  the  legitimate  conclusions  from  the  doc- 
trine of  St.  Cyprian  ;  for  the  holy  Doctor  lays  down  i 
other  principles  besides,  which  clearly  determine  the 
sense  of  the  former  ones :  First,  that  St.  Peter  in  con- 
fessing the  divinity  of  Jesus  Christ,  ansvvei*ed  for  all  the 
Apostles,  and  spoke  in  the  name  of  them  all,  and  not  in 
his  own  name  personally  ;  secondly,  that  the  other  Apos- 
tles were  equal  to  St.  Peter  in  power  and  dignity  ;  third- 
ly, that  all  the  Bishops  who  are  successors  of  the  Apos- 
tles are  successors  of  St.  Peter,  in  the  same  way  as  those 
of  Rome. 

If  St.  Peter  answered  Jesus  Christ  in  the  name  of  his 
colleagues,  it  was  because  the  question  was  addressed 
to  them  as  well  as  to  him.  St.  Cyprian  positively  as- 
serts this :  "  Peter,  upon  whom  the  Lord  had  built  the 
Church,  speaking  alone.,  for  all.,  and  answering  b^j  the 
voice  of  the  Chiereh"  If  the  personality  of  that  Apos- 
tle loas  not  concerned  in  Christ's  question  and  in  Peter's 
answer,  can  it  be  said  that  his  person  is  the  foundation 
of  the  Church  ?  It  is  evident  that  all  the  Apostles  have 
been  so  many  foundations  of  that  mystical  edifice ;  as 
Holy  Scripture  affirms  very  plainly,  and  as  we  have 
already  endeavoured  to  show.     Peter  in  replying  alone., 

*  St.  Cyp.  rte  Unitat.  Eccl.,  Letters  27,  55,  69,  75. 


THE   PAPACY.  147 

was,  therefore,  but  the  symbol  of  the  unity  which  was 
to  govei'n  the  Apostolic  body,  and  afterward  the  epis- 
copate. But  in  being  the  symbol  or  sign,  was  he  neces- 
sarily the  source  and  principle  of  it,  so  that  without  him 
it  could  not  subsist  ?  What  if  he  were  ?  Would  the 
Bishop  of  Rome  inherit  this  privilege  ?  St.  Cyprian 
was  so  far  from  this  opinion,  that  he  united  with  Fir- 
milianus  in  rebuking  Stephen,  Bishop  of  Rome,  for 
breaking  this  unity  and  putting  himself  outside  of  this 
unity,  when  he  separated  himself  from  the  communion 
of  those  who  differed  with  him  in  belief  concerning  i-e- 
baptism.  The  question  is  not  whether  Stephen  was 
right  or  wrong,  but  what  Cyprian  thought  of  his  op- 
position. Now  so  far  from  believing  that  unity  with 
Stephen  was  necessary  to  unity  with  tlie  Church,  he 
affirmed  that  Stephen  had  separated  himself  from  that 
unity.  Can  it  be  said  after  this,  that  Cyprian  placed 
in  the  Bishop  of  Rome  the  sotirce  and  pidnciple  of  the 
unity  of  the  Church  ?  He  did  not  even  attribute  that 
prerogative  to  the  person  of  St.  Peter.  He  saw  in  him 
only  the  symbol  of  that  unity,  which  resided  in  the  en- 
tire apostolate^  as  it  was  subsequently  to  reside  in  the 
episcopate.,  which  is  one ;  which  episcopate  in  its  unity, 
is  the  see  of  Peter.  He  fully  develops  that  reflec- 
tion in  one  of  his  letters.*  "  Jesus  Christ,"  he  says, 
"  in  order  to  determine  the  honour  due  to  a  bishop, 
and  all  tliat  concerns  the  government  of  the  Church, 
speaks  in  the  Gospel  and  says  to  Peter,  ^  I  say  to  thee, 
thou  art  Peter^  etc?''  Thus  Christ  does  not  confer  upon 
Peter,  by  these  words,  a  personal  prerogative  ;  he  con- 
fers upon  all  the  Apostles  a  power  common  to  them  all, 
and  not  only  upon  the  Apostles,  but  upon  all  the  Bish- 
ops their  successors,  who  jointly  and  severally  possess 
the  episcopate,  which  is  one,  and  which  is  thus  the  found- 
ation of  Church  unity. 

*  St  Cyp.  27th  Letter. 


148  THE   PAPACY. 

Is  it  consistent  with  this  doctrine  of  St.  Cyprian  to 
affirm,  as  do  the  Romish  theologians,  that  Christ  gave 
to  Peter  a  personal  privilege,  and  that  this  exclusive 
privilege  has  passed  to  the  Bishops  of  Rome  ? 

The  great  principle  that  runs  through  the  remarks 
of  the  Bishop  of  Carthage,  is,  that  in  the  Church  there 
is  but  one  apostolic  see ;  that  is  to  say,  as  he  himself 
explains  it,  hid,  one  legitimate  episcopate  transmitted 
from  the  Apostles ;  let  this  episcopate  be  attacked  at 
Rome  or  elsewhere,  it  is  an  attack  upon  the  unity  and 
upon  the  apostolic  see,  which  must  remain  one,  as  Christ 
has  taught  us  by  answering  to  one  for  all  It  is  this 
episcopate  which  is  the  chair  of  St.  Peter.  Therefore 
when  Novatus  would  establish  at  Rome,  side  by  side 
with  the  legitimate  episcopate,  another  episcopate  which 
does  not  come  from  the  Apostles,  this  last  episcopate  is 
out  of  the  unity  of  the  apostolic  see — the  universal  see, 
the  unity  of  which  is  typified  in  Peter  ;  he  is  therefore 
schismatic,  as  well  as  all  others  who  would  establish  in 
any  place  whatsoever,  an  episcopate  separate  from  the 
one  which  constitutes  the  apostolic  inheritance. 

Instead  of  thus  comparing  the  sevei'al  points  of  the 
doctrine  of  St.  Cyprian  upon  the  Church,  the  Romish 
theologians  have  only  consented  to  notice  some  few 
words  standing  alone,  such  as  see  of  Peter,  source  of 
unity,  for  the  sake  of  applying  them  without  reason  to 
the  jxirticular  church  of  Rome,  while  they  might  so 
easily  have  convinced  themselves  that  the  holy  Father 
understood  by  these  words  nothing  more  than  the  apos- 
tolic Church,  or  the  legitimate  episcopacy  in  general. 
It  is  thus  that  he  speaks  of  the  laxcful  episcopate  of  Car- 
thage as  the  see  of  Peter,  as  well  as  of  that  of  Rome  ;* 
that  he  speaks  of  the  early  bishops  of  Rome,  as  the  pre- 
decessors of  himself,  the  Bishop  of  Carthage,  which  ob- 
viously means  that  he  possessed  the  same  legitimate 

•  St.  Cyprian,  iOUt  I.eUer. 


THE   PAPACY.  149 

episcopate  that  they  had  ;*  and  accordingly,  in  the  fa- 
mous letter  to  Pope  Cornelius,  which  has  been  so  much 
abused  by  the  Romans,  because  in  it  the  holy  Doctor 
calls  the  Church  of  Rome  the  principal  church,  from 
lohich  sacerdotal  unity  proceeded^ — in  this  letter,  St. 
Cyprian  exclaims  with  indignation  against  a  handful  of 
unprincipled  men,  who  sought  an  appeal  to  Rome,  as  if 
the  bishops  of  Africa  were  not  possessed  of  the  same 
authority. 

If,  contrary  to  all  evidence,  we  should  accept  the  con- 
struction given  by  some  Romish  theologians  to  a  few 
isolated  words  of  St.  Cyprian,  we  must  conclude  that 
the  good  Father  was  wanting  in  common-sense.  For  on 
the  one  hand  he  would  make  Peter  the  foundation  and 
chief  of  the  Church,  while  on  the  other  he  would  teach 
that  all  the  Apostles  had  the  same  honour  and  power  as 
Peter  ;  he  would  make  the  Bishop  of  Rome  sole  in- 
heritor of  St.  Peter's  prerogatives,  while  maintaining 
that  all  lawful  bishops  are  his  heirs  in  the  like  manner ; 
he  would  teach  that  the  episcopate  is  but  one,  possessed 
jointly  and  severally  by  all  legitimate  bishops,  and  at 
the  same  time  he  would  make  the  Roman  episcopate  a 
separate  and  superior  authority ;  he  would  regard  the 
Pope  as  the  source  of  unity,  and  in  the  same  breath  re- 
prove the  Pope  for  seceding  from  unity  ;  he  would  recog- 
nize a  superior  jurisdiction  in  the  see  of  Rome,  while  he 
would  call  those  men  unprincipled  who  did  not  see  in 
Africa  the  same  episcopal  authority  as  in  Rome. 

We  have  already  seen  that  St.  Cyprian  blamed  Pope 
Stephen  for  pretending  to  be  bishop  of  bishops,  which, 
according  to  his  real  teaching,  was  in  fact  monstrous ; 
but  had  he  taught  the  doctrine  that  Rome  ascribes  to 
him,  he  could  not  have  blamed  him,  for  it  would  have 
been  legitimate. 

♦  Bt.  Ojprian,  67th  Letter. 

t  St.  Oyptian,  55th  Letter.    We  have  already  explained  these  words. 


150  THE   PAPACY. 

Is  it  just,  then,  for  the  sake  of  favouring  the  papal  sys- 
tem, to  make  of  St.  Cyprian  a  writer  wanting  in  good 
sense  and  logic,  and  to  isolate  out  of  his  writings  a  few 
words  that  may  be  interpreted  in  favour  of  this  system, 
without  noticing  the  rest  ? 

We  think  it  more  proper  to  compare  the  several  parts 
of  the  doctrine  of  one  to  whose  genius  and  holiness  all 
Christian  ages  have  rendered  homage.  In  this  manner 
we  find  in  his  works  a  broad,  logical,  and  catholic  doc- 
trine, but  one  opposed  to  the  papal  system.  Whence 
it  follows  that  the  champions  of  the  modern  Papacy  can- 
not rest  upon  his  evidence,  without  falsifying  his  works, 
without  insulting  his  memory,  without  denying  by  im- 
plication both  his  genius  and  his  sincerity,  which  alone 
can  give  any  authority  to  his  words. 

It  follows  from  all  this,  that  Rome  cannot  establish 
her  pretended  rights  upon  the  testimony  of  either  St. 
Irenaeus,  Tertullian,  St.  Cyprian,  Firmilianus,  nor  of 
Eusebius  of  Cassarea,  without  resorting  to  such  subter- 
fuges as  are  unworthy  of  an  honest  cause. 

Such  is  also  their  practice  with  respect  to  numerous 
testimonies  that  prove  the  falsity  of  their  interpreta- 
tion of  the  famous  text,  '-'■I'hou  art  Peter.''''  The  Fathers, 
who  understand  it  to  refer  to  the  person  of  St.  Peter, 
are  the  most  ancient,  say  these  theologians  ;  they  were 
nearer  to  the  apostolic  times,  and  understood  the  text 
better  than  those  of  later  centuries.  Upon  that  point 
they  emphatically  quote  Tertullian,  who,  in  fact,  says  :  * 
*'  Could  any  thing  have  been  hidden  from  Peter,  who 
was  called  the  rock  of  the  church  which  was  to  be 
built  ?" 

At  first  sight,  one  might  indeed  think  that  Tertullian 
had  applied  the  word  rock  {la  pierre)  to  the  person  of 
Peter,  but  he  explains  himself  in  another  of  his  works, 

*  TertuU.  De  Prescription,  cap.  xxii 


THE  PAPACY.  151 

where  he  says  :*  "  If  Christ  changes  the  name  of  Simon 
to  that  of  Peter,  it  is  not  only  to  signify  the  strength 
and  firmness  of  his  faith,  for  then  he  would  have  given 
him  the  name  of  such  solid  substances  as  are  strength- 
ened and  made  more  durable  by  admixture  and  cohe- 
sion ;  but  he  gives  him  the  name  of  Peter  {the  stone) 
because,  in  Scripture,  the  stone  typifies  and  represents 
Christ,  who  is  the  stone  of  which  we  read  that  it  is 
laid  to  be  a  stumbling-stone  and  rock  of  otfence.f  Since, 
then,  he  thus  changes  his  name,  it  is  to  express  the 
change  he  is  going  to  make  in  the  world,  by  transform- 
ing idolatrous  nations  into  stones  similar  to  him,  and  fit 
for  the  building  of  his  Church." 

With  this  explanation  of  Tertullian  himself  before  us, 
where  are  the  deductions  that  it  is  sought  to  draw  from 
his  first  text  ? 

And  further,  when  we  see  Tertullian,  in  the  work 
from  which  we  have  quoted,  maintaining  that  in  address- 
ing Peter,  Christ  addressed  all  the  Apostles  ;  teaching, 
moreover,  that  the  twelve  Apostles  were  equal  among 
themselves,  like  the  twelve  wells  of  Elim,  the  twelve 
precious  stones  of  Aaron's  breast-plate,  and  Joshua's 
twelve  stones  from  Jordan  ;  can  it  be  said  in  good  faith 
that  he  acknowledged  in  St.  Peter  any  exceptional  or 
superior  prerogative  ?  Above  all,  can  he  be  said  to 
have  acknowledged  these  prerogatives  in  the  Bishops  of 
Rome? 

One  thing  is  certain,  that  the  Fathers  who  seem  to 
have  understood  the  words  "  u)>on  this  rock  "  to  apply  to 
the  person  of  St.  Peter,  really  meant  to  apply  it  only  to 
the  object  of  his  Faith,  namely,  Jesus  Christ,  the  Man- 
God.  We  will  give  as  an  example  St.  Hilary  of  Poi- 
tiers. 

This  Father,  in  his  commentary  upon  St.  Matthew  and 

•  Tertull.  adv.  Marc.  Lib.  IV.  +  Rom.  9  :  33. 


152  THE  PAPACY. 

upon  the  Psalms,  applies  to  St.  Peter  the  word  rock  of 
the  Church,  and  regards  him  as  its  foundation,* 

But  in  his  work  upon  the  Trinity  he  acknowledges 
that  it  is  upon  the  rock  of  his  confession — that  is  to  say, 
upon  the  divinity  of  Jesus  Christ — that  the  Church  is 
built. f  "  There  is,"  he  adds,  "  but  one  unchangeable 
foundation,!  that  only  rock  confessed  by  the  mouth 
of  St.  Peter,  '  Thou  art  the  Son  of  the  liviyig  God."* 
Upon  that  are  based  as  many  arguments  for  the  truth 
as  perversity  can  suggest  doubts,  or  infidelity  calum- 
nies." 

It  is  evident  that  in  this  place  the  holy  Father  means 
only  the  object  of  St.  Peter's  confession  of  faith — that  is, 
the  divinity  of  Jesus  Christ.  If  it  should  be  claimed 
that  he  meant  his  subjective  faith — that  is  to  say,  his 
adherence — and  that  the  Bishops  of  Rome  have  inherited 
that  unfailing  faith,  it  suffices  to  recall  the  anathema  of 
the  same  Father  against  Pope  Liberius,  who  had  grown 
weak  in  the  confession  of  the  divinity  of  Christ :  "  I  say 
to  thee  anathema,  O  Liberius,  to  thee  and  to  thine  ac- 
complices. I  repeat,  anathema.  And  again  I  say  it  to 
thee  a  third  time  ;  to  thee,  Liberius,  thou  prevaricator. "§ 
According  to  St.  Hilary  of  Poitiers,  therefore,  if  St. 
Peter  may  be  considered  as  the  rock  of  the  Church,  it 
is  only  because  of  the  confession  of  faith  that  he  made 
in  the  name  of  the  whole  Apostolic  College,  and  through 
the  very  object  of  that  faith,  which  is  the  divinity  of 
Christ.  His  doctrine  thus  agrees  with  that  of  Tertul- 
lian  and  the  other  Fathers,  who  have  only  in  this  sense 
applied  to  Peter  himself  the  title  of  rock  of  the  Church. 
If  we  add  that  this  Father  and  the  others  nowhere  imply 
that  this  title  belongs  to  the  Bishops  of  Rome,  and  fur- 

♦  St.  Hil.  of  Poit.  Commentary  upon  the  16th  chap,  of  St.  Matt.,  and  upon  the  ISlst 
Psalm,  §  4. 
+  St.  Hil.  of  Poit.  on  the  Trinity,  Book  VI.  chap.  86. 
t  St.  Hil.  of  Poit.  on  the  Trinity,  Book  IL  chap.  2a 
8  St.  HU.  de  Poit.  Fragm. 


THE  PAPACY.  153 

ther,  that  their  teaching  is  even  altogether  opposed  to 
that  opinion,  it  will  be  admitted  that  it  is  only  by  a 
strange  abuse  of  some  of  their  words,  taken  alone  and 
misconstrued,  that  the  Romish  theologians  have  sought 
to  prop  the  papal  authority  upon  their  testimony. 

St.  Epiphanius  taught  the  same  doctrine  as  St.  Hilary 
of  Poitiers.*  "  Peter,  prince  of  Apostles,"  he  says,  "  has 
been  for  us  as  a  solid  stone,  upon  which  the  faith  of  the 
Lord  rests  as  upon  a  foundation  ;  upon  which  the  Church 
has  been  in  every  way  edified.  It  was  chiefly  because 
he  confessed  the  Christ,  Son  of  the  living  God,  that 
it  was  said  to  him,  '  Upon  this  rock  of  solid  faith  I  will 
build  my  Church.' " 

The  Apostle  Peter  is  not  separated  from  the  dogma 
he  confessed ;  and  it  is  this  dogma  itself  which  is  the 
foundation  of  the  Church. 

We  do  not  deny  that  St.  Epiphanius  called  Peter 
prince  of  Apostles  ;  but  in  what  sense  ? 

The  Romans  cite  the  following  text  in  their  favour  :f 
"  Andrew  first  met  the  Lord,  because  Peter  was  the 
younger.  But  subsequently  when  they  had  renounced 
every  thing  else,  it  was  Peter  who  was  first ;  he  then 
takes  precedence  of  his  brother.  Add  to  this  that  God 
knows  the  bent  of  all  hearts,  and  knows  who  is  worthy 
of  the  first  place.  It  is  for  this  reason  that  Peter  was 
chosen  to  be  prince  of  his  disciples,  "as  is  very  clearly 
declared." 

Did  St,  Epiphanius  mean  by  this,  tliat  Peter  was  the 
foundation  and  chief  of  the  Church,  or  that  the  Church 
was  founded  upon  the  objective  faith  of  that  Apostle — 
that  is  to  say,  the  divinity  of  Christ,  to  which  he  had 
rendered  homage  ?  He  answers  for  himself,  as  we  have 
already  seen. 

"  Upon  Peter,"  he  says,  "  the  Church  is  built,  because 

*  Epiph.  Hseres.  59.  t  Epiph.  Hseres.  61. 


154  THE  PAPACY. 

he  confessed  Christ  as  Son  of  the  living  God,  and  be- 
cause it  was  said  to  him,  U2)0h  this  rock  of  solid  faith 
1  will  build  my  Church.^'' 

In  the  same  place  St.  Epiphanius  teaches  that  the 
words  "  feed  my  sheep  "  were  not  said  by  the  Lord  to 
commit  to  Peter  the  government  of  the  Church,  but  to 
reinstate  him  in  his  apostolic  dignity,  which  lie  had 
forfeited  by  denying  Christ.  "  The  Lord,"  he  says, 
"  CALLED  Peter  again  after  his  denial ;  and  to  efface 
the  three  denials,  he  calls  upon  him  thrice  to  confess  him.''' 

Elsewhere*  he  makes  St.  Paul  the  equal  of  St.  Peter 
at  Rome,  saying  of  them,  "  Peter  and  Paul,  the  first  of 
all  the  Apostles,  were  equally  Bishops  of  Rome."  And 
he  thus  speaks  of  St.  James  of  Jerusalem : 

"  He  (James)  first  received  the  see,  (of  Jerusalem  :)  it 
is  to  him  first  that  the  Lord  intrusted  his  throne 
UPON  earth."! 

It  is  clear  that  he  did  not  believe  that  it  was  Peter 
who  had  inherited  the  throne  of  the  Lord  in  this  world. 
He  believed  then  that  the  primacy  granted  to  St.  Peter 
was  a  mere  2)^'iority,  as  Pope  Leo];  explains  it  in  the  fol- 
lowing passage  :  "The  disposition  of  the  truth  remains  ; 
and  the  blessed  Peter  has  persevered  in  that  strength 
of  the  rock  which  he  had  received,  and  has  never  aban- 
doned the  reins  of  the  Church  which  had  been  confided 
to  him  ;  he  received  ordinatioti  before  the  others,  in  order 
that  when  he  is  called  roc^'  (Pierre)  and  foicndationy  .... 
we  might  know,  by  the  mystery  of  these  titles,  what 
union  exists  between  him  and  Christ." 

This  text  proves  that  St.  Leo  saw  in  St.  Peter  nothing 
more  than  a  priority  of  ordination.  He  believed  that 
it  was  by  his  ordination  uniting  him  to  Christ  that  he 
was  the  rock  (Pierre)  and  tlie  foundation  of  the  Church. 

*  Epiph.  Haeres.  27.  t  Epiph.  Haeres.  78. 

t  St.  Leo,  Sermon  II.,  (III.  in  Migne,)upon  the  anniversary  of  his  elevation  tq.the 
Pontificate. 


THE  PAPACY.  155 

He  understands  the  power  of  binding  and  loosing 
committed  to  Peter  in  an  equally  orthodox  sense.  "  This 
power  is  confided  to  him,"  he  says,*  "  in  a  special  man- 
ner, because  the  type  {forma)  of  Peter  is  proposed  to 
all  the  pastors  of  the  Church.  Therefore  the  privilege 
OP  Peter  dwells  wherever  judgment  is  given  with 
HIS  EQUITY."  Hence  he  concludes  that  only  that  will 
be  remitted  or  retained  which  might  be  so  by  a  just 
sentence  and  one  worthy  of  Peter. 

It  is  difficult  to  understand  how  the  Romish  theolo- 
gians have  dared  to  quote  the  two  preceding  texts  in 
support  of  the  papal  autocracy,  so  evident  is  it  that  St. 
Leo  ascribes  to  St.  Peter  only  a  primacy^  or  rather 
a  priority  of  ordination.,  and  that  instead  of  ascribing 
to  the  Bishop  of  Rome  only,  the  power  of  Peter,  he  re- 
gards that  Apostle  only  as  the  form  or  figure  of  the 
apostolic  power,  which  is  exercised  in  reality  wherever 
it  is  exercised  with  equity. 

And  this  also  explains  these  other  words  of  St.  Leo  :f 

*'  From  the  whole  world  is  Peter  chosen  to  lead  the 
vocation  of  all  peoples,  all  the  Apostles,  and  all  the 
Fathers  of  the  Church ;  so  that,  though  there  are  many 
priests  and  many  pastors,  nevertheless,  Peter  governs 
all  those  whom  also  Christ  governs  in  chief. 

"  The  divine  condescension  gave  to  this  man  a  great 
and  wondrous  participation  in  His  power ;  whenever 
He  willed  there  should  be  something  in  common  be- 
tween him  and  the  other  princes,  he  never  gave  save 
through  him  what  he  did  not  deny  to  the  others." 

Such  phrases  that  smack  of  panegyric  should  have 
their  doctrinal  interpretation  according  to  the  positive 
instruction  which  we  find  in  the  other  texts  of  the  same 
father. 

St.  Leo  does  not  pretend  that  St.  Peter's  power,  what- 

♦  St.  Leo,  Sermon  III.,  (IV.  Migne.)  f  lb. 


156  THE  PAPACY. 

ever  it  was,  passed  to  the  Bishops  of  Rome.  His  letter 
to  the  Council  of  Chalcedon  proves  this,  as  we  have 
seen,  sufficiently ;  and  this  power  of  the  first  Apostle 
did  not  make  him  master  of  the  others ;  it  has  passed 
to  all  bishops  who  exercise  it  lawfully ;  Peter  was  only 
distinguished  by  the  priority  of  his  ordination. 

Romish  theologians  have  misused  the  eulogiums  that 
St.  Leo  and  other  Fathers  have  addressed  to  St.  Peter, 
in  an  oratorical  way,  without  choosing  to  see  that  even 
literally  understood,  they  do  not  constitute  privileges 
transmissible  to  the  Bishops  of  Rome,  since  none  of  these 
Fathers  have  recognized  any  in  them  ;  but  no  one  who 
is  familiar  with  the  Fathers  could  take  these  eulogies  lit- 
erally. We  will  prove  this  by  the  works  of  St.  John 
Chrysostom,  whose  writings  have  been  most  abused  by 
the  Ultramontanes,  and  whom  they  most  prefer  to  quote 
in  support  of  their  system.  They  have  accumulated 
texts  to  prove  that  the  great  Bishop  of  Constantinople 
gave  to  St.  Peter  the  titles  of  Jirst,  of  great  apostle,  of 
Coryphanis,  of  prince,  of  chief,  and  of  mouth  of  the 
Apostles. 

But  if  he  has  given  the  same  titles  to  the  other  Apos- 
tles, what  can  we  conclude  in  favour  of  St.  Peter  ? 

Now,  in  several  places  in  his  writings  he  says  of  all 
the  Apostles,  that  they  were  the  foundations,  the  col- 
umns, the  chiefs,  the  doctors,  the  pilots,  and  the  pastors 
of  the  Church. 

He  calls  Peter  and  John  in  the  same  sense,  princes  of 
the  Apostles.*  He  says  of  Peter,  James,  and  John  col- 
lectively, that  they  were  "  first  in  dignity  among  the 
Apostles,  the  foundations  of  the  Church,  the  first  called, 
and  princes  of  the  disciples.^f 

If  he  says  of  St.  Peter,  "  Peter  so  blotted  out  his 
denialj  that  he  became  the  first  of  the  Apostles,  and  that 

♦  Upon  St  Matthew,  Homily  82.  t  Upon  the  First  Chapter  of  Galatians. 


THE  PAPACY.  157 

the  entire  universe  was  confided  to  him^''*  he  likewise 
says  elsewhere  of  Peter  andJohn^  that  the  universe  was 
confided  to  them  ;\  he  says  of  St.  Paul :  "  Angels  often 
receive  the  mission  of  guarding  the  nations,  but  none 
of  them  ever  governed  the  people  confided  to  him  as 
Paul  governed  the  whole  universe.  .  .  .  The  Hebrew 
people  were  confided  to  Michael  the  Archangel,  and  to 
Paul  were  committed  the  earth,  the  sea,  the  inhabit- 
ants of  all  the  universe — even  the  desert."!  "  In  the 
kingdom  of  heaven,"  he  says,  "  it  is  clear  that  no  one 
will  be  before  Paul."§  He  further  calls  him  the  pilot 
of  the  Church\  vessel  of  election^  the  celestial  trumpet^ 
the  leader  of  the  spouse  of  Christ;  that  is,  the  Church.  1 
In  the  following  passage,  he  evidently  places  him  above 
St.  Peter :  "  In  the  place  where  the  cherubim  are  cover- 
ed with  glory,  and  where  the  seraphim  soar,  there  shall 
we  see  Paul  with  Peter,  (Paul)  who  is  the  prince  and 
president  {TTpoaTcirTis)  of  the  choir  of  saints."** 

It  is  most  important  to  observe  that  St.  Chrysostom 
attributes  an  equal  dignity  to  these  two  Apostles  when 
he  mentions  both  of  them  together.  We  will  give  some 
few  examples. 

In  his  second  sermon  on  prayer,  he  tells  us  that 
prayer  has  such  power  that  it  "  delivered  from  great 
perils  both  Peter  and  Paul,  the  columns  of  the  Church 
and  princes  of  the  Apostles,  the  most  glorious  in  heaven, 
the  walls  of  the  universe,  and  guardians  of  earth  and 
Bea."tt 

Speaking  of  the  rebuke  which  Paul  gave  to  Peter  at 


*  Against  the  Jews.    Eighth  Discourse. 

+  Upon  St  John.     Eighty-eighth  Homily, 

%  Panegyric  upon  St.  Paul.     Second  Homily. 

§  Upon  St.  Matthew.     Sixty-fifth  Homily. 

I  Sermon  on  the  Twelve  Apostles. 

^  Homily  upon  the  words,  "  May  It  please  God  that  ye  be  patient  awhile.' 

**  Thirty-second  Homily  upon  Epistle  to  Romans. 

t+  Upon  Prayer.    Second  Discourse. 


158  THE  PAPACY. 

Antioch,  he  says :  "  Is  any  one  troubled  to  hear  that 
Paul  resisted  Peter,  that  the  columns  of  the  Church 
came  into  collision  and  fell  upon  each  other  ?  For 
they  are  the  columns  that  bear  and  sustain  the  roof  of 
faith ;  and  not  only  the  columns,  but  also  the  shields 
and  e^/es  of  the  body  of  the  Church,  the  source  and 
treasure/  of  all  good  things ;  and  if  one  should  say  of 
them  all  that  could  be  imagined,  he  could  not  sufficient- 
ly describe  their  dignity."*  Later  he  compares  these 
Apostles  to  two  coursers  drawing  together  the  chariot 
of  the  Church,  adding,  in  allusion  to  his  fall,  that  one  of 
them,  Peter,  appears  to  halt.f  He  finally  adds,  "  How, 
O  Paul !  didst  thou,  who  wast  so  gentle  and  good  with 
thy  disciples,  show  thyself  cruel,  inhuman  toward  thy  fel- 
low-apostle," {ovva7T6aroXog.)l  Is  it  possible  to  say  more 
distinctly  that  Paul  was  equal  with  Peter  in  dignity  ? 

We  find  the  same  truth  in  the  following  passage, 
which  deserves  very  particular  attention  : 

"  Christ  confided  the  Jews  to  Peter,  and  set  Paul  at 
the  head  of  the  Gentiles.  J  do  not  say  this  of  myself  but 
we  have  Paul  himself  who  says  :  '  For  he  that  wrought 
effectually  in  Peter  to  the  apostleship  of  the  circumci- 
sion, the  same  was  mighty  in  me  toward  the  Gentiles. 
(Galat.  2  :  8.)  For  as  a  wise  general  (fiaatXevg)  who, 
after  having  carefully  estimated  the  capacities  of  each, 
gives  to  one  the  command  of  the  cavalry,  and  to  an- 
other that  of  the  infantry,  Christ  also  did  certainly  di- 
vide his  army  in  two  parts,  and  confided  the  Jews  to 
Peter,  and  the  Gentiles  to  Paul.  The  two  divisions  of 
the   army  are   indeed   several,   but  the   General  is 


OJfE,"^ 


Here,  then,  is  the  true  doctrine  of  St.  John  Chrysos- 
tom  :  The  Apostles  w^ere  equal  in  dignity ;  Peter  and 
Paul  were  alike  first  among  them,  the  one  for  the  Jews, 

*  Homily  on  the  words,  "  I  withstood  him  to  the  face." 
t  Ibid.  i  Ibid.  §  Ibid. 


THE  PAPACY  159 

the  other  for  the  Gentiles  ;  Peter  never  received  any 
exclusive  sui^remacy  over  all  Christendom ;  the  only 
chief  of  the  Church  was,  is,  and  ever  shall  be,  Jesua 
Christ  himself.  Let  us  carefully  observe  these  words 
of  St.  Chrysostom,  '•'•I  do  not  say  this  of  myself,''''  which 
signifies :  this  is  not  a  mere  personal  opinion  ;  it  is  a  truth 
which  the  Holy  Ghost  has  taught  us  by  the  Apostle  Paul. 

St.  John  Chrysostom  has  not  recognized  in  the  Church 
any  dignity  superior  to  the  apostolate  in  general. 

"  Of  all  spiritual  magistratures,"  says  he,  "  the  great- 
est is  the  apostolate.  How  do  we  know  this  ?  Because 
the  apostle  precedes  all  others.  As  the  consul  is  the 
first  of  civil  magistrates,  so  is  the  apostle  the  first  of 
spiritual  magistrates.  St.  Paul  himself,  when  he  enu- 
merates these  dignities,  jilaces  at  their  head  the  jirerog- 
atives  of  the  apostolate.  What  does  he  say  ?  'And  God 
has  set  some  in  the  church  ;  first,  apostles  ;  secondarily, 
prophets  ;  thirdly,  teachers.'  Do  you  observe  the  sum- 
mit of  these  dignities  ?  Do  you  mark  tJiat  the  apostle 
is  at  the  apex  of  the  hierarchy — no  one  before,  none 
above  him.  For  he  says  :  ""First,  ajyostles.''  And  not 
only  is  the  apostolate  the  first  of  all  dignities,  but  also 
the  root  and  fonndatio7i  thereof."* 

St.  Chrysostom  recognized  no  supremacy  in  the  apos- 
tolate. Had  he  believed  that  Clirist  had  set  one  of 
the  Apostles  above  the  rest  to  be  his  representative 
on  earth  and  the  visible  chief  of  his  Church,  he  certainly 
would  have  said  so,  for  manifestly  then  or  never  was 
the  time  to  speak  of  it. 

We  can  now  appreciate  the  audacity  which  the  Ro- 
mish theologians  display  in  asserting  that  according  to 
St.  Chrysostom,  the  authority  of  Peter  was  the  most 
fundamental  and  essential  tlnng  i/i  the  organization 
of  the  hierarchy,  which  tlie  Church  has  received  from 
Christ.     The  great  and  holy  Patriarch  is  his  own  de- 

*  Homily  upon  the  Utility  of  Reading  Holy  Scripture. 


160  THE  PAPACY. 

fence  against  those  who  have  falsified  his  doctrine,  when 
he  tells  them  that  the  apostolate  belongs  equally  to  all 
the  Apostles.    "  That  it  is  the  first  of  all  dignities, 

THAT  THE  APOSTLE  IS  AT  THE  SUMMIT  OF  THE  HIER- 
ARCHY, THAT    NONE    IS    BEFORE  AND    NONE  ABOVE    HIM." 

The  Romish  theologians  make  the  most  capital  of  this 
passage  on  the  election  of  St.  Matthias :  "  Peter  always 
speaks  first,  because  he  is  full  of  zeal ;  because  it  is  to 
him  that  Christ  has  committed  the  care  of  the  flock ;  and 
"because  he  is  the  first  among  the  Apostles."  A  little 
further  on,  asking  whether  Peter  would  not,  himself, 
have  designated  some  one  to  take  the  place  of  Judas,  he 
adds,  "  Without  doubt  he  could  have  done  this,  but  ho 
refrained  in  order  not  to  seem  to  do  a  favour  to  the  one 
he  would  name." 

In  the  first  place,  these  expressions  that  "  Peter  always 
epeaks  first,  because  he  is  full  of  zeal  and  because  he  is 
first  among  the  Apostles,"  are  the  best  evidence  that 
Chrysostom  never  meant  to  say,  because  he  was  the 
chief  of  the  Church.  And  thus  the  third  because,  in- 
serted between  the  other  two,  '■''because  it  is  to  him 
that  Christ  has  committed  the  care  of  his  flock,"  is  na 
longer  susceptible  of  the  meaning  attached  to  it  by  the 
Romanists ;  unless  one  would  make  the  good  Father  con- 
tradict himself,  not  only  in  this  passage,  but  in  all  his 
writings.  This  is  abundantly  confirmed  by  the  explana- 
tion thart  the  great  Patriarch  gives  of  the  words,  '■'■feed 
my  laynbs,  feed  my  sheep,''''  upon  which  our  adversaries 
most  rely  when  they  claim  that  it  was  to  Peter  alone 
that  these  words  wei-e  addressed,  and  that  to  him  alone 
was  confided  the  care  of  the  flock.  "  This,"  writes  St. 
Chrysostom,  "  was  not  said  to  the  Apostles  and  bishops 
only,  but  also  to  each  one  of  us,  however  humble,  to 
whom  has  been  committed  the  care  of  the  flock."* 
Thus,  according  to  St.  Chrysostom,  these  words  were 

♦  Upon  St  Matthew,  77th  homily. 


THE   PAPACY.  161 

not  said  to  Peter  alone  and  only  for  him ;  they  did  not 
confer  upon  him  the  dignity  of  supreme  pastor  of  the 
Apostles  and  the  Church  ;  but  were  addressed  to  all  the 
Apostles  in  common,  and  to  all  bishops  and  pastors  who 
are  equally  the  successors  of  the  Apostles.  Moreover, 
St.  Chrysostom  perceived  neither  honour  nor  authority  in 
these  words,  but  an  exhortation  to  zeal  and  carefulness. 
"  Three  times,"  he  says,  "  the  Lord  questioned  Peter, 
and  three  times  he  gave  him  this  command,  in  order  to 
show  him  how  much  care  must  be  taken  for  the  salva- 
tion of  the  sheep."* 

St.  Chrysostom  himself  has  refuted  the  conclusions  that 
the  Romanists  would  draw  from  the  remainder  of  the  text. 

"  Behold,"  he  says,  "  how  Peter  does  all  things  by 
common  consent,  and  decides  nothing  by  his  own  au- 
thority and  power.     .     .     ."f 

"  It  was  not  Peter  who  presented  them,  (Matthias  and 
Joseph,)  but  all,  (the  Apostles.)  Thus  Peter  did  nothing 
but  give  them  counsel,  showing  moreover  that  it  did  not 
come  from  him,  but  had  been  announced  of  old  in  the 
prophecies,  and  thus  he  was  the  interpreter,  hut  not  the 
master^  And  again  :  "  Remark  the  modesty  of  James, 
although  he  had  received  the  Bishopric  of  Jerusalem,  he 
says  nothing  on  this  occasion ;  consider  also  the  great 
modesty  of  the  other  disciples,  who,  after  unanimously/ 
giving  the  throne  to  James^  no  longer  disputed  among 
themselves.  For  that  Church  was,  as  it  were,  in  heaven, 
having  nothing  of  earth — shining  not  by  its  walls  or  its 
marbles,  but  by  the  unanimous  and  pious  fervour  of  its 
members."     .     .     . 

The  Romish  theologians  quote  the  first  part  of  this 
text,  but  carefully  abstain  from  quoting  the  last ;  such, 
indeed,  being  their  habit. 

According  to  this  Father,  therefore,  the  Apostles  acted 
by  common  consent ;  they  chose  together  the  candidates 

♦  Upon  St.  John,  88th  homily.  t  Upon  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  8d  horn. 


162  THE   PAPACY. 

for  the  election  ;  Peter  did  not  speak  as  master,  but  as 
interpreter  of  the  prophecies  ;  James,  who  was  the  first 
in  dignity,  and  the  other  Apostles,  allowed  him  to  speak 
alone  because  of  their  modesty,  not  because  they  did  not 
possess  the  same  power  as  he.  If  St.  Chrysostom  re- 
cognized a  superior  dignity  in  any  of  the  Apostles,  we 
should  say  it  was  in  St.  James  of  Jerusalem.  In  fact, 
beside  the  text  already  quoted,  we  find  the  following 
amongst  his  writings  : 

"  Behold,  after  Peter  it  is  Paul  who  speaks,  and  no 
man  objects  ;  James  looks  on  and  remains  quiet,  for  the 
primacy  had  been  committed  to  him.  John  and  the 
other  Apostles  do  not  speak,  but  remain  silent  without 
the  least  vexation,  because  their  soul  was  free  from  all 
vainglory.  .  .  .  After  they  (Barnabas  and  Paul) 
ceased  speaking,  James  answered  and  said,  '  Simeon 
hath  declared  how  God,  at  the  first,  did  visit  the  Gen- 
tiles.' .  .  .  Peter's  language  had  been  more  vehe- 
ment ;  that  of  James  is  more  moderate.  It  is  thus  those 
should  always  act  xcho  jyossess  fjreat  power.  He  leaves 
severity  for  others,  and  reserves  moderation  for  himself." 

Again,  where  he  analyzes  the  words  of  St.  James,  he 
reasons  thus : 

"  What  means,  I  judge  ?  It  means,  /  affirm.,  with 
authority,  that  the  thing  is  thus.  .  .  .  James.,  there- 
fore., decided  the  ichole  question.^''* 

This  passage  may  not  seem  to  the  Romanists  to  prove 
the  primacy  of  James,  but  it  assuredly  disproves  that 
of  Peter — if  by  primacy  we  mean  authority. 

Romish  theologians  also  quote  St.  Chrysostom  upon 
the  fall  of  St.  Peter  as  follows  : 

"  God  permitted  him  to  yield,  because  He  meant  to 
establisli  him  prince  of  the  entire  universe  ;  so  that,  re- 
membering his  own  faults,  he  should  pardon  those  who 
might  fall." 

♦  Upon  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  83d  horn. 


THE   PAPACY.  ^g3 

We  have  already  seen  that  St.  Chrysostom  does  not 
use  this  title  ot  prince  of  the  universe,  in  the  sense  that 
Rome  struggles  to  give  it ;  and  without  that  interpre- 
tation, the  passage  quoted  presents  nothing  further  in 
favour  of  the  papal  theory.  As  to  St.  Chrysostom's 
opinion  of  Peter's  fall,  he  himself  explains  it  :* 

"  Wishing  to  correct  Peter  of  this  fault  of  contradic- 
tion, Christ  permitted  that  this  Apostle  should  deny 
Him.  .  .  .  Hear  what  He  says  to  him  :  '  I  have 
prayed  for  thee,  that  thy  faith  fail  not.''  He  holds  this 
language  to  him  in  order  to  touch  him  the  more  forcibly, 
and  to  show  him  that  his  fall  would  be  heavier  than  that 
of  the  others,  and  that  it  would  need  a  greater  aid.  For 
his  was  a  double  crime — that  of  contradiction,  and  that 
of  exalting  himself  above  the  others.  There  was  yet  a 
third,  still  more  serious — that  of  relying  entirely  upon 
his  own  strength.  In  order  to  cure  Peter,  the  Saviour 
allows  him  to  fall ;  and,  passing  by  the  other  disciples, 
He  says  to  him,  '  Simon,  Simon,  behold,  Satan  hath  de- 
sired to  have  you,  that  he  may  sift  you  as  wheat ' — that 
is,  to  trouble,  to  tempt  you — '  but  I  have  prayed  for  thee^ 
that  thy  faith  fail  not.'  Why,  if  Satan  hath  desired  to 
sift  all  the  Apostles,  does  not  the  Loi*d  here  say, '  I  have 
prayed  for  you''  ?  Is  it  not,  evidently,  for  the  reasons 
I  have  stated  ?  Is  it  not  in  order  to  touch  Peter,  and 
to  show  him  that  his  fall  would  be  heavier  than  that  of 
the  others,  that  He  speaks  to  him  only  ?  How,  then, 
could  Peter  deny  Christ  ?  Because  Christ  did  not  say 
to  him,  '  that  thou  shouldst  not  deny  me,'  but  '  that  thy 
faith  fail  not,  that  it  do  not  entirely  perish.''  "f 

How  is  it  possible  to  discover  in  such  language  the 
faintest  allusion  to  a  supremacy  of  authority  given  to 
St.  Peter  upon  the  occasion  of  his  fall  ?  What  singular 
boldness  to  maintain  that  our  Lord  meant  to  establish 
a  distinction  in  favour  of  Peter,  and  to  notify  him  of  his 

Upon  chapter  Ist  of  Galatians.  t  Upon  St.  Matthew,  82d  homily. 


164  TSE  PAPACY. 

elevation  over  the  other  Apostles,  precisely  at  the  mo- 
ment when  He  foretold  him  his  fall  and  denial ! 

The  following  words  most  evidently  determine  the 
meaning  which  Chrysostoni  gives  to  Peter's  primacy. 
He  says,  in  the  first  place,  that  this  Apostle  was  "  first 
in  the  Church."  Now  "the  first  in  a  society,"  does  not 
mean  "  the  chief  of  that  society."  Again  he  adds  : 
"  When  I  say  Peter  (Pierre)  I  say  the  solid  rock,  {la 
pierre,)  the  unshaken  base,  the  great  Apostle,  the  first 
of  the  Apostles,  the  first  called,  the  first  obedient."* 
Evidently  he  praises  Peter  for  the  solidity  of  the  faith  ho 
had  confessed ;  he  calls  him  "  first  of  the  Apostles,"  be- 
cause he  was  the  first  called  to  the  apostolate.  He  does 
not  say  '■'■first  in  authority, ^^  but  "  the  first  obedient.''^ 
St.  Peter  had,  therefore,  the  glory  of  being  called  first 
to  the  apostolate,  and  of  being  also  the  first  servant  of 
Jesus  Christ. 

As  regards  the  alleged  succession  from  St.  Peter  that 
is  claimed  for  the  Roman  bishops,  the  Romish  theolo- 
gians Bum  up  the  doctrine  of  St.  Chrysostom  as  follows : 

"  The  Church  of  Antioch  had  the  honour  of  possessing 
St.  Peter  for  a  time.  She  acknowledges  him  as  her 
founder,  but  she  did  not  keep  him.  It  was  to  Rome 
that  he  removed  his  see ;  it  was  at  Rome  that  he  re- 
ceived the  palm  of  martyrdom  ;  and  Rome  has  his  tomb 
— Rome,  preeminently  the  royal  city." 

What  says  the  Father  ? 

"  One  of  the  prerogatives  of  our  city  (Antioch)  is  to 
have  had  for  her  teacher  Peter,  the  leader  of  the  Apos- 
tles. It  was  just  that  the  city  which  first  of  all  the 
world  was  adorned  with  the  name  of  Christian,  should 
have  for  her  Bishop  the  first  of  the  Apostles.  But  hav- 
ing received  him  as  teacher,  we  did  not  keep  him  al- 
ways ;  we  yielded  him  to  the  imperial  city  of  Rome ;  or 
rather,  wq  have  always  kept  him  ;  for  if  we  have  not  the 

*  Upon  AlmBglving,  8d  homily. 


THE   PAPACY.  165 

l)ody  of  Peter,  we  have  kept  the  faith  of  Peter  as  oar 
Peter,  since  holding  Peter's  faith  is  as  though  we  held 
Peter  himself  P*' 

Peter  is  therefore  nothing  except  for  the  sake  of  the 
truth  to  which  he  testified.  St.  Chrysostom  says  this 
expressly  in  the  same  discourse,  and  adds :  "  When  I 
mentioned  Peter,  another  Peter  was  brought  to  mind, 
[Flavian,  Bishop  of  Antioch,  at  the  time  the  discourse  was 
written,]  a  father  and  doctor  common  to  us  all,  who  has 
inherited  St.  Peter's  virtue,  and  has  received  his  see  in 
heritage^  Again,  in  his  eulogy  of  St.  Ignatius,  Bishop 
of  Antioch,  we  read :  "  St.  Ignatius  was  the  successor 
of  Peter  in  his  principality."!  The  Latin  translation 
thus  renders  it :  "  St.  Ignatius  succeeded  (St.  Peter) 
in  the  dignity  of  the  episcopate."  This  is  incorrect. 
The  principality  in  the  style  of  the  Fathers  is  the  apos- 
tolate,  which  is  indeed  the  source  of  the  episcopate,  but 
surpasses  it  in  dignity  and  power.  But  whether  translated 
principality  or  episcopate,  St.  Chrysostom's  testimony  is 
equally  opposed  to  the  Romish  doctrine,  that  the  Bishop 
of  Rome  is  the  sole  successor  of  St.  Peter.  According 
to  St.  Chrysostom,  St.  Peter  cannot  in  fact  have  occu- 
pied the  see  of  any  one  city,  being  equally  and  in  a  gen' 
eral  sense  the  apostle-bishop  of  all  the  churches  where 
he  preached  the  Gospel,  and  where  his  teachings  are 
preserved. 

In  this  same  discourse,  St.  Chrysostom  calls  St.  Igna- 
tius of  Antioch,  "  teacher  of  Rome  in  the  faith,"  and 
gives  the  following  as  the  reason  why  Peter,  Paul,  and 
Ignatius  died  at  Rome  :  "  You  [inhabitants  of  Antioch] 
have  through  God's  blessing,  no  further  need  of  in- 
struction, for  you  have  struck  root  in  religion  ;  but  the 
people  of  Rome,  because  of  the  great  wickedness  that 
prevailed  there,  needed  more  powerful  aid  ;  therefore 

*  9d  Homily  upon  the  Title  of  the  Acta  of  the  Apostles, 
t  Eulogy  on  St.  Ignatius. 


166  THE   PAPACY. 

were  Peter  and  Paul^  and  Ignatius  with  them,,  put  to 
death  there.^''*  In  developing  this  subject,  he  adds  : 
"  The  death  of  these  Apostles  and  Ignatius  was  a  visi- 
ble proof  and  a  preaching  in  action  of  the  resurrection 
of  Jesus  Christ." 

In  another  discourse,  St.  Chrysostom  shows  just  as 
plainly  that  he  ascribes  no  right  of  superiority  to  the 
city  of  Rome,  although  Peter  and  Paul  died  there.  He 
says :  "  I  love  Rome  for  her  magnificence,  her  antiquity, 
her  beauty,  for  the  multitude  of  her  inhabitants,  her 
power,  her  wealth,  her  military  glory  :  but,  above  all,  I 
call  that  city  blessed,  because  Paul  wi'ote  to  the  Ro- 
mans during  his  life,  because  he  loved  them,  because  he 
spoke  with  them,  during  his  sojourn  among  them,  and 
ended  his  life  in  their  midst."f  He  thus  merely  ex- 
presses a  personal  sentiment  of  affection  for  the  city  of 
Rome.  The  praises  he  gives  her  are  earthly  and  tem- 
poral. He  merely  says,  "  I  love  Rome,"  but  he  does  not 
say  that  he  recognizes  the  Church  of  that  city  as  the 
Queen  of  Churches  —  the  mother  and  mistress  of  all 
others.  He  ascribes  no  privilege  to  her  on  account  of 
St.  Peter.  We  see,  therefore,  that,  in  seeking  to  give  the 
sanction  of  so  great  a  name  to  their  doctrine  of  papal 
prerogative,  the  Romish  theologians  have  distorted  the 
works  of  this  great  divine.  And  no  less  the  doctrine 
of  St.  Gregory  Nazianzen,  which,  in  respect  to  St. 
Peter,  may  be  entirely  summed  up  in  this  text :  "  Thou 
seest,"  he  says,  "  how  among  Christ's  disciples,  all 
equally  great,  high,  and  worthy  of  election,  this  one  is 
called  the  Rock,  in  order  that  07i  his  faith  he  may  re- 
ceive the  foundations  of  the  Church."J  He  does  not 
say  that  it  was  upon  the  person  of  St.  Peter  that  the 
Church  was  to  be  built,  but  upon  his  faith ;  nor  yet  upon 
his  sidfjective  faith,  which  Avas  to  fail  so  sadly  at  the 

•  Eulogy  on  Ignatius.  +  Homily  22,  on  the  Epistle  to  Romans. 

X  S.  Greg.  Nazian.  26th  Discourse. 


THE   PAPACY.  167 

moment  of  his  three-fold  denial ;  but  upon  his  objective 
faith — that  faith  which  he  had  confessed  in  the  divinity 
of  Christ. 

Romanists  invoke  the  testimony  of  St.  Gregory  of 
Nyssa,*  who  says : 

"  We  celebrate  the  memory  of  St.  Peter,  who  is  the 
chief  of  the  Apostles  ;  and  in  him  we  honour  the  other 
members  of  the  Church,  for  it  is  on  him  that  the  Church 
of  God  rests,  since,  in  virtue  of  the  prerogative  he  holds 
from  the  Lord,  he  is  the  firm  and  solid  rock  on  which 
the  Saviour  has  built  his  Church." 

Such  is  the  translation  of  Roman  theologians.  Here 
is  the  literal  translation  from  the  Greek : 

"  We  celebrate  the  memory  of  St.  Peter,  who  is  the 
chief  of  the  Apostles  ;  and  together  tolth  him  are  glori- 
fied the  other  members  of  the  Church ;  and  the  Church 
of  God  is  strengthened^  since,  in  virtue  of  the  gift  that 
the  Lord  has  given  him,  he  is  the  firm  and  inost  solid 
rock  upon  which  the  Saviour  has  constructed  the 
Church."! 

By  their  translation,  the  Romish  theologians  endeavour 
to  convey  the  idea  that  Peter  received  an  exceptional 
gift,  that  made  him  the  sole  foundation  of  the  Church. 
St.  Gregory  positively  denies  the  errours  they  would  at- 
tribute to  him  in  the  following  passages,  taken  from  the 
same  discourse  they  misquote  : 

"We  chiefly  commemorate  to-day  those  who  have 
shone  with  a  great  and  dazzling  splendour  of  piety.  I 
mean  Peter,  James,  and  John,  who  axQ  the  princes  of  the 
apostolic  order.     .     .     The  Apostles  of  the  Lord  were 

•  Greg,  of  Nyssa,  Panegyric  of  St.  Stephen. 

f  Mv7]fiovEVFTac  HeTpo^  KF(pa?.7J  TiJv  'AnoaroXtJv  Kal  (Tvvth^d^eTat 
fiiv  dvTu)  rd  ?MLird  fj.ef)r}  r/yf  iKK?.7]aia(,  lTriaT7}Qi^£Tai  di  tj  inKXriaia  tov 
Qeov.  OvToc  yap  eari  nard  rfjv  dodeiaav  dvT(I>  irapd  tov  Kvpiov  dupedv 
f/  dftjiay^i  Kal  axvpuTartj  iTETpa  i(j>'  ^v  T7)v  CKK?i7jaiav  6  Zurjjp  UKodo- 
ftnce.     (Greg,  of  Nyssa.) 


168  THE   PAPACY. 

stars  that  brightened  all  under  heaven.  Their  princes 
and  chiefs — Peter,  James,  and  John — whose  martyrdom 
we  celebrate  today,  suffered  in  various  ways.     .     . 

*'  It  is  just  to  celebrate  on  the  same  day  the  memory 
of  these  men,  not  only  because  they  were  unanimous  in 
their  preaching,  but  because  of  the  equality  of  their 
DIGNITY,  {tov  dfiOTCfiov.)  The  one  (Peter)  who  held 
the  Jirst  place,  {npuToodaTTjg,)  and  who  is  the  chief  of  the 
Apostolic  college,  received  the  favour  of  a  glory  suitable 
to  his  dignity,  being  honoured  with  a  passion  similar  to 
that  of  the  Saviour.  .  .  But  James  was  beheaded, 
aspiring  to  the  possession  of  Christ,  who  is  truly  (ovtcjs) 
HIS  HEAD,  for  the  head  of  man  is  the  Christ,  who  is  at 
the  same  time  head  of  all  the  Church."     .... 

"  They  (the  Apostles)  are  the  foundations  of  the  Church, 
the  columns  and  pillars  of  truth.  They  are  never-failing 
springs  of  salvation,  from  which  flow  abundant  torrents 
of  divine  doctrine." 

After  again  giving  the  same  titles  to  Peter,  James, 
and  John,  St.  Gregory  adds  : 

"  Nevertheless,  we  have  not  said  this  to  debase  the 
other  Apostles,  but  to  bear  witness  to  the  virtue  of  those 
of  whom  we  speak ;  or,  better  still,  in  order  to  speak 
the  common  praise  of  all  the  Apostles." 

All  these  titles,  all  this  praise,  given  by  St.  Gregory  to 
Peter,  James,  and  John,  refer  not  to  the  dignity  of  their 
apostolate — that  dignity  was  the  same  in  all — but  mere- 
ly to  their  personal  virtue.  He  is  at  particular  pains  to 
leave  no  doubt  as  to  the  true  value  of  these  encomiums, 
and  upon  the  doctrine  of  the  real  equality  of  the  Apos- 
tles, for  he  adds : 

"  As  regards  the  truth  of  the  dogmas,  they,  (the 
Apostles,)  like  members,  represent  one  and  the  same 
body  ;  and  whether  one  member  be  honoured,  as  the  Apos- 
tle says,  (1  Cor.  12  :  26,)  all  the  members  rejoice  with  it. 
As  their  labours  for  religion  were  in  com,mon,  so  also  the 


THE   PAPACY.  109 

honours  deserved  for  their  preaching  of  the  faith  are  in 
common.  Why,"  he  continues,  "  should  we  be  so  bold  as 
to  endeavour  to  express  what  is  above  our  power,  and  to 
strive  worthily  to  celebrate  the  virtues  of  the  Apostles  ? 
Our  encomiums  are  not  for  Simon,  (Peter,)  known  as 
having  been  a  fisherman,  but  for  his  firm  faith,  that 
SUPPOETS  THE  Chubch.  Neither  do  we  exalt  the  sons 
of  Zcbedee,  (James  and  John,)  but  the  Boanerges,  which 
means  the  sons  of  the  thunder.^^ 

It  is,  therefore,  not  the  person  of  Peter  that  is  the 
rock  of  the  Church,  but  the  faith  he  confessed ;  that  is, 
Jestcs  Christy  the  Son  of  God^  or  the  divinity  of  Christ, 
to  which  he  bore  witness. 

Among  the  Greek  Fathers  there  is  not  one  who  has 
taught  a  different  doctrine  from  that  of  Chrysostom  and 
Gregory  of  Nyssa.  St.  Cyril  of  Alexandria  says  express- 
ly, "  The  word  rock  has  only  a  denominative  value — it 
signifies  nothing  but  the  steadfast  and  firm  faith  of  the 
Apostle."*  This  forbids  us  to  ascribe  to  Cyril  the  opinion 
that  founds  so  great  privileges  upon  that  word,  and  yet 
this  text  has  been  quoted  in  favour  of  the  modern  Papacy 
by  its  champions.  They  quote  yet  another  passage :  "  He 
(Christ)  teaches  his  disciple  (Peter)  that  it  was  He  that 
knew  all  things  before  they  were  created  ;  He  announces 
to  him  that  his  name  shall  be  no  more  Simon,  but  Peter ; 
giving  him  to  understand  by  this  word  that  He  would 
build  his  Church  upon  him  as  upon  a  stone  ^nd  a  very 
solid  rock."f 

Has  he  taught  that  Peter  should  be  exclusively  the 
foundation  of  the  Church  ?  No ;  for  he  teaches  else- 
wherej  that  "  Peter  and  John  were  equal  in  dignity  and 
honour.^''  In  another  place  §  he  teaches  that  "  Christ  is  the 


♦St.  Cyril  of  Alexandria,  Of  the  Trinity,  Fourth  Book. 
+  St  Cyril  of  Alexandria  upon  St.  John,  Book  IL  ch.  xU. 
t  St.  Cyril  of  Alexandria,  Letter  to  Nestorlus. 
f  St.  Cyril  of  Alexandria,  Second  Discourse  on  IsaUh. 


170  THE   PAPACY. 

foundation  of  all — the  unshaken  base  upon  which  we 
all  are  built  as  a  spiritual  edifice."  Has  he  in  this 
taught  that  the  privileges  of  Peter  would  pass  to  the 
Bishops  of  Rome  ? 

He  nowhere  makes  the  least  mention  of  such  a  thing. 
Why,  then,  do  Romish  theologians  call  him  to  Avitness? 
For  we  have  seen  that  the  application  of  the  word  rock  to 
Peter  does  not  prove  that  this  Apostle  enjoyed  any  ex- 
ceptional prerogatives  ;  much  less  does  it  prove  that  the 
Bishops  of  Rome  have  inherited  any  from  that  Apostle, 

St.  Cyril  had,  touching  the  prerogatives  of  St.  Peter, 
no  other  teaching  than  that  of  the  learned  school  of 
Alexandria.  Clement,  one  of  the  great  luminaries  of 
that  school,  taught  distinctly  that  no  primacy — in  the 
sense  of  authority — ever  existed  among  the  Apostles. 
"  The  disciples,"  he  says,*  "  disputing  for  primacy.^ 
Christ  made  a  law  of  equality,  saying,  '  Ye  must  be- 
come as  little  children.'" 

Origen  taught  no  other  doctrine.  Romish  theologians 
quote  some  texts  in  which  he  seems  to  apply  to  the  per- 
son of  St.  Peter  the  title  of  the  roch.,  but  they  omit  this 
passage,  in  which  he  clearly  explains  himself:  "  If  you 
believe,"  he  says,f  "that  God  has  raised  the  whole 
building  of  his  Church  on  Peter  alone,  what  will  you 
say  of  John,  the  son  of  the  Thunder  ?  What  will  you 
say  of  each  of  the  Apostles  ?  Will  you  venture  to  say 
that  the  gates  of  hell  shall  not  prevail  against  Peter  in 
particular,  but  shall  prevail  against  the  others  ?  Are 
not  the  words,  the  gates  of  hell  shall  not  prevail  against 
it.,  addressed  to  them  all  ?  Have  not  these  words  had 
their  fulfilment  in  each  one  of  the  Apostles  ?"  And  such 
also  is  the  teaching  of  Cyril  of  Alexandria,  ever  faith- 
ful to  the  traditions  of  his  fathers. 

The   same  is   true  of  that  of  St.  Basil  of  C£esarea. 

*  St.  Clement  of  Alexandria,  Stromat.  Fifth  Book,  fifth  section. 
+  Origen,  Commentary  on  St.  Matt. 


THE   PAPACY.  171 

Romanists  have  in  vain  sought  to  use  him  as  an  author- 
ity. It  is  sufficient  to  read  him  to  be  assured  that  lie 
has  nowhere  made  the  Apostle  Peter  the  rock  of  the 
Church,  as  they  pretend.  "  The  house  of  the  Lord," 
he  says,*  "built  in  the  top  of  the  mountains,"  is  the 
Church — according  to  the  Apostle  who  says  that  one 
should  know  how  to  conduct  one^s  self  in  the  Ilonse  of 
God,  which  is  the  Church  of  the  living  God.  Its  foun- 
dations are  in  the  holy  mountains,  for  it  is  built  upon 
the  foundations  of  the  Apostles  and  Prophets.  One  of 
these  mountains  was  Peter,  7q)07i  which  rock  the  Lord 
promised  to  build  his  Church.  It  is  just  that  sublime 
souls,  lifted  above  terrestrial  things,  should  be  called 
mountains.  Now,  the  soul  of  the  blessed  Peter  Avas 
called  a  sicblime  rock,  because  heioas  Jii-mly  grou7ided  in 
faith,  and  that  it  bore  constantly  and  courageously  the 
blows  that  were  laid  upon  it  in  the  day  of  trial.  St. 
Basil  concludes  that  by  imitating  that  faith  and  courage 
we  shall  also  become  mountains  upon  which  the  house 
of  God  may  be  raised. 

Some  Western  fathers  of  the  fourth  and  fifth  centu- 
ries seem,  more  than  those  of  the  East,  to  favour  the 
papal  authority.  But  it  is  not  so  in  fact.  We  have 
already  given  the  doctrine  of  TertuUian,  of  St.  Cyprian, 
of  St.  Hilary  of  Poitiers,  and  of  St.  Leo.  That  of  Am- 
brose, Augustine,  Optatus,  and  Jerome  is  the  same. 

According  to  St.  Augustine,  St.  Ambrose  had  made 
the  word  rock  in  his  hymns  relate  to  the  person  of  St. 
Peter,  and  this  had  at  first  led  him  to  adopt  this  con- 
struction. St.  Ambrose,  however,  explains  himself  in 
other  writings,  as  in  the  following  :f  "  Faith  is  the  foun- 
dation of  the  Church,  for  it  was  not  o^  the  person  but  of 
the  faith  of  St.  Peter  that  it  was  said  that  the  gates  of 
hell  should  not  prevail  against  it ;  it  is  the  confession  of 

♦  St.  Basil  on  second  chapter  of  Isaiah.  t  St.  Ambrose,  On  the  Incarnation. 


172  THE   PAPACY. 

faith  that  has  vanquished  hell."  The  truth  confessed  by 
St.  Peter  is,  therefore,  the  foundation  of  the  Church,  and 
no  promise  was  made  to  his  person,  nor,  consequently, 
to  his  subjective  faith. 

Among  the  texts  of  St.  Ambrose,  Rome  relies  chiefly 
upon  this  :*  "  The  Lord,  who  questioned,  did  not  doubt ; 
he  questioned,  not  to  learn,  but,  in  order  to  teach  which 
one  he  would  leave,  as  the  vicar  of  his  love,  before  ascend- 
ing to  heaven  .  .  .  Because,  alone  of  them  all,  he  confessed 
Him,  he  is  preferred  to  all .  .  .  The  Lord  does  not  ask  the 
third  time,  likeU  thou  me,t  but  lovest  thou  me  ;  and  then 
He  does  not  commit  to  him,  as  the  first  time,  the  lambs 
that  must  be  nourished  with  milk,  nor,  as  at  the  second 
time,  the  young  sheep ;  but  he  commands  him  to  pasture 
all,  that,  being  more  perfect,  he  may  govern  the  most 
perfect." 

Now,  say  with  much  gravity  the  Romish  theolo- 
gians, after  quoting  this  text,  who  are  these  most  per- 
fect sheep  if  not  the  other  Apostles  ?  Then  they  go  one 
step  further,  and  suppose  that  the  Pope  takes  Peter's 
place,  and  the  Bishops  that  of  the  other  Apostles  ;  and 
thus  they  arrive  at  the  conclusion  that  the  Bishops  are 
the  sheep  as  regards  their  relation  to  the  Pope. 

St.  Ambrose  never  said  a  word  that  would  sustain 
such  inferences.  He  gives  no  dogmatic  character  to 
what  he  says  of  St.  Peter.  He  proposes  a  mystic  and 
devout  interpretation — he  has  no  intention  to  confound 
the  Apostles,  who  are  the  shepherds^  with  the  sheep. 
Much  less  does  he  dream  of  any  privileges  of  the  Bish- 
ops of  Rome,  whom  he  does  not  even  mention.  A  tot- 
tering foundation,  indeed,  for  so  lofty  an  edifice  !     St. 

•  St.  Ambrose,  On  St.  Luke,  and  passim. 

+  Thu8  only  can  we  do  justice  to  the  text.  In  fact,  dyana^  and  ^tXetf  ^f®  ^i^x 
properly  translated  "  lovest,"  as  in  our  common  English  version ;  but  In  the  Greek 
the  two  words  indicate  different  degrees  of  loving— 0iAetv  being  stronger  than 
ayaizdv Ed. 


THE   PAPACY.  173 

Ambrose,  like  Hilary  of  Poitiers,  ascribes  sometimes  to 
the  person  of  Peter,  sometimes  to  his  faith,  or  rather  to 
the  object  of  his  faith,  the  title  of  the  rock.  To  his  per- 
son he  only  attributes  the  title  in  a  figurative  manner, 
and  by  extension.  '^  Jesus  Christ,"  he  says,"  is  the  rock. 
He  did  not  deny  the  grace  of  this  name  to  his  disci- 
ple when  he  called  him  Peter^  because  he  borrowed  from 
the  rock  the  constancy  and  solidity  of  his  faith.  En- 
deavour, then,  thyself  to  be  a  rock — thy  rock  is  thy  faith, 
and  faith  is  the  foundation  of  the  Church.  If  thou  art 
a  rock,  thou  shalt  be  in  the  Church,  for  the  Church  is 
built  upon  the  rock?'' 

This  explanation  leaves  no  shadow  of  doubt  upon  the 
sense  in  which  St.  Ambrose  took  this  famous  saying, 
upon  which  Romanists  rear  the  prodigious  monument  of 
papal  prerogatives.  Why  was  this  name  given  to 
Peter?  "Because,"  adds  St.  Ambrose,  "the  Church 
was  built  on  Peter's  faith."  But  what  faith  ?  His  per- 
sonal belief,  or  the  truth  he  believed  ?  St.  Ambrose  re- 
plies in  the  same  place,  "  Peter  was  thus  named  because 
he  was  the  first  who  laid  the  foundation  of  faith  among 
the  nations."  What  did  he  preach  ?  Certainly  not  his  per- 
sonal assent.  What  he  taught  is,  then,  the  truth  that  he 
believed  ;  and  that  truth  is  the  foundation  of  the  Church. 

The  works  of  St.  Ambrose  are  full  of  proofs  against 
papal  pretensions.  But  why  multiply  texts  ?  One  only 
needs  to  glance  over  his  works  to  be  convinced  that  he 
is  no  authority  in  favour  of  the  Ultramontane  system. 
We  shall  therefore  be  content  to  quote  only  the  follow- 
ing texts,  in  which  he  sets  forth  his  belief  concerning 
Peter's  primacy. 

In  explaining  these  words  in  the  epistle  to  the  Gala- 
tians,  "  I  went  up  to  Jerusalem  to  see  Peter,''''  he  says : 
"  It  was  proper  that  Paul  should  go  to  see  Peter.  Why  ? 
was  Peter  superiour  to  him  and  to  the  other  Apostles  ? 
No ;  but  because,  of  all  the  Apostles,  he  was  the  first  to 


174  THE   PAPACY. 

be  intrusted  by  the  Lord  Avith  the  care  of  the  churches. 
Had  he  need  to  be  taught,  or  to  receive  a  commission 
from  Peter  ?  No  ;  but  that  Peter  miglit  know  that  Paul 
had  received  the  power  which  had  also  heen  given  to 
himself P 

St.  Ambrose  also  explains  these  other  words :  "  When 
they  saw  that  the  Gospel  of  the  uncircumcision  was 
committed  to  me ;"  "  He  (Paul)  names  only  Peter,  and 
only  compares  himself  with  him,  because  as  Peter  had 
received  the  primacy  to  found  the  Church  of  the  Jews., 
he,  Paul,  had  been  chosen  in  like  manner  to  have  the 
•primacy  in  founding  the  Church  of  the  Gentiles."  Then 
he  enlarges  upon  this  idea,  which  completely  demolishes 
the  papal  pretensions.  In  flxct,  according  to  St.  Ambrose, 
Rome,  which  confessedly  did  not  belong  to  the  Jews, 
should  not  glory  in  the  primacy  of  St.  Peter,  but  iu  that 
of  St.  Paul.  Besides,  she  would  then  come  closer  to 
historic  truth  :  for  it  is  demonstrated  that  Paul  evangel- 
ized  Rome  before  Peter ;  that  her  first  two  bishops 
were  ordained  by  Paul ;  and  that  her  succession  through 
Peter  only  dates  from  Clement,  her  third  Bishop. 

Finally,  what  does  St.  Ambrose  mean  by  the  word 
primacy  ?  He  attached  no  idea  of  honour  or  authority 
to  it,  for  he  says  positively  :  "  As  soon  as  Peter  heard 
these  words,  '  Whom  say  ye  that  I  amf  remembering 
his  place,  he  exercised  this  primacy.,  a  primacy  of  con- 
fession, not  of  honour  •  a  primacy  of  faith,  not  of  rankP* 
Is  not  this  to  reject  all  idea  of  primacy  as  taught  by  the 
Romanists  ?  It  is  clear,  then,  that  they  Avrong  St.  Am- 
brose in  making  him  their  authority. 

Not  less  St.  Augustine.  This  Father  indeed  said,f 
"  Peter,  who  a  short  time  before  had  confessed  that 
Christ  was  the  Son  of  God,  and  Avho  in  return  for  that 
confession,  had  been  called   the  rock  upon   which  the 

*  St,  Ambrose  on  the  Incarnation.  +  St.  Augustine  on  69th  Psalm. 


THE   PAPACY.  175 

Church  should  be  built,  etc. ;"  but  he  explains  his  mean- 
ing in  several  other  works.  Let  us  give  a  few  speci- 
mens :*  "  Peter  received  this  name  from  the  Lord  toi 
signify  the  Church ;  for  it  is  Christ  who  is  the  rock,  and 
Peter  is  the  Christian  people.  The  rock  is  the 
principal  word ;  this  is  why  Peter  is  derived  from  the 
Jiock,  and  not  the  rock  from  Peter  ;  precisely  as  the 
word  Christ  is  not  from  Christian,  but  Christian  from 
Christ.  '  Thou  art  therefore  Peter,  and  upon  this  rock 
I  will  build  my  Church.  I  will  build  thee  on  myself — 
I  will  not  be  built  on  thee.'  " 

"The  Church,"  he  says  again,f  "  is  built  on  the  rock 
after  which  Peter  was  named.  That  rock  was  Christ, 
and  it  is  on  this  foundation  that  Peter  himself  was  to 
be  raised." 

Li  his  book  of  the  Retractations,  the  same  Father  says  :| 
"  In  that  book,  I  said  in  one  place,  in  speaking  of  St. 
Peter,  that  the  Church  had  been  built  on  him  as  on  the 
rock.  This  thought  is  sung  by  many  in  the  verses  of 
the  blessed  Ambrose,  who  says  of  the  cock,  that  '  when  it 
crew  the  Rock  of  the  Church  deplored  his  fault.''  But 
I  know  that  subsequently  I  very  frequently  adopted  this 
sense,  that  when  the  Lord  said,  '  Thou  art  Peter,  and 
%ipon  this  rock  I  will  build  my  Church^''  he  meant  by 
tJiis  rock,  the  one  which  Peter  had  confessed  in  saying, 
'  Thou  art  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  the  limng  God; '  so  that 
Peter,  called  by  the  name  of  this  rock,  represented  the 
person  of  the  Church  which  is  built  upon  that  rock, 
and  which  has  received  the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of 
Leaven.  In  fact,  it  was  not  said  to  him.  Thou  art  the 
rock;  but  thou  art  Peter.  The  rock  was  Christ.  Peter 
having  confessed  him  as  all  the  Church  confesses  him, 
he  was  called  Peter.  Between  these  two  sentiments, 
let  the  reader  choose  the  most  probable." 

*  St.  Auguatine,  13t,h  Sermon.  t  St.  Augustine,  124th  Tract. 

X  St.  Augustine  Retractations,  Book  L  ch.  21. 


176  THE   PAPACY. 

Thus  St.  Augustine  condemns  neither  of  the  interpre- 
tations given  to  the  text,  Thou  art  Peter^  etc.  But  he 
evidently  regards  as  the  better  the  one  which  he  most 
frequently  used.  Yet  this  does  not  prevent  the  Romish 
theologians  from  quoting  this  Father  in  favour  of  the 
first  interpretation,  which  he  admitted  but  once,  and 
renounced,  though  without  formally  condemning  it. 

St.  Augustine  teaches,  like  St.  Cyprian,  that  Peter 
represented  the  Church — that  he  was  the  type  of  the 
Church.  He  does  not  infer  from  this  that  the  whole 
Church  was  summed  up  in  him  ;  but,  on  the  contrary,  that 
he  received  nothing  personally,  and  all  that  was  granted 
to  him  was  granted  to  the  Church.*  Such  is  the  true  com- 
mentary upon  the  belief  of  the  Fathers — that  Peter  typ- 
ified the  Church  whenever  he  addressed  Christ,  or  the 
Lord  spoke  to  him.  St.  Augustine,  it  is  true,  admits 
that  Peter  enjoyed  the  primacy,  but  he  explains  what 
he  means  by  that  word.  "  He  had  not,"  he  says,  "  the 
primacy  over  the  disciples  {in  discipulos)  but  among  the 
disciples,  {in  discipulis.)  His  primacy  among  the  disci- 
ples was  the  same  as  that  of  Stephen  among  the  dea- 
cons^  He  calls  Peter  the  first  {primus)  as  he  calls 
Paul  the  last,  {novissimvs,)  which  conveys  only  an  idea 
of  time.  And  that  this  was  indeed  St.  Augustine's 
idea,  appears  from  the  fact  that,f  in  this  same  text,  so 
much  abused  by  Romanists,  because  in  it  Augustine 
grants  Peter  the  primacy,  he  distinctly  asserts  that 
Peter  and  Paul,  the  first  and  the  last,  were  equal  in  the 
honour  of  the  apostleship.  Therefore,  according  to 
St.  Augustine,  Peter  received  only  the  high  favour  of 
being  called  first  to  the  Apostleship.  This  distinction 
"with  which  the  Lord  honoured  him,  is  his  glory,  but 
gave  him  no  authority. 

According  to  Romish  theologians,  St.  Augustine  re- 

*  Sermona  118  and  316,  Sermon  10  on  Peter  and  Paul,  Tract  124  on  John  et  alibL 
t  Sermon  10  on  Peter  and  PauL 


THE  PAPACY.  177 

cognized  the  supreme  authority  of  the  Roman  Church 
when  he  said  that  "  the  principality  of  the  Apostolic 
chair  has  always  been  in  vigour  there;"*  but  what  did 
he  mean  by  these  words  ?  It  is  certain  that  the  Church 
of  Africa,  under  the  inspiration  of  St.  Augustine  him- 
self, who  was  her  oracle,  wrote  vigourously  to  the  Bishop 
of  Rome,  warning  him  not  to  receive  to  his  communion 
thereafter,  those  whom  she  had  excommunicated,  as  he 
had  done  in  the  case  of  a  certain  Appiarius,f  because  he 
could  not  do  so  without  violating  the  canons  of  the 
Council  of  Nicea.  Far  from  recognizing  the  supreme 
authority  of  Rome,  the  Church  of  Africa,  in  accord  with 
St.  Augustine,  refused  to  that  Bishop  the  title  of  sum- 
mus  sacerdos.  St.  Augustine  did  not,  therefore,  recog- 
nize the  superior  jurisdiction  of  the  Roman  Church. 
What,  then,  does  he  mean  by  principality  of  the  Apos- 
tleship?  He  leaves  no  doubt  upon  the  subject.  After 
having  ascribed  this  principality  of  the  Apostleship  to 
St.  Paul  as  well  as  to  St.  Peter,  he  observes  that  it  is 
something  higher  than  the  episcopate,  "  Who  does  not 
know,"  says  he,  "  that  the  principality  of  the  Apostle- 
ship is  to  be  preferred  to  every  episcopate  .^"J  The 
Bishops  were  considered,  indeed,  as  successors  of  the 
Apostles  ;  but  while  they  inherited  from  them  the  apos- 
tolic ministry,  they  had  no  share  in  certain  superiour  pre- 
rogatives, which  only  belonged  to  the  first  Apostles  of 
Christ.  These  prerogatives  constitute  the  principality 
of  the  Apostleship,  which  thus  belongs  equally  to  all 
the  first  Apostles.  And  in  fact,  the  title  of  Apostle- 
prince  is  given  to  them  all  indiflferently  by  the  Fathers 
of  the  Church.  Eveiy  Apostolic  Church,  therefore — 
that  is,  every  Church  that  has  preserved  the  legitimate 
Apostolic  succession — has  preserved  this  principality  of 

*  St.  Aug.  Ep.  to  the  Donatist  Bishops. 

t  Epist.  Eplscop.  Afric.  ad  Celestin.  et  Cone  Carth.  in. 

t  St.  Augustine's  10th  Sermon  on  Peter  and  Paul. 


1V8  THE   PAPACY. 

the  see,  that  is,  of  Ajyostolic  teaching.  St.  Augustine 
merely  says  that,  in  his  time,  the  Church  of  Rome  had 
preserved  this  succession  of  Apostolic  teaching.  Does 
that  prove  that  he  recognizes  in  her  a  superiour  authori- 
ty, and  one  universal  in  the  government  of  the  Church  ? 
Assuredly  not.  So  far  was  he  from  recognizing  any 
such  authority,  that  by  preference,  he  sends  the  Dona- 
tists  to  the  Apostolic  churches  of  the  East,  to  be  con- 
vinced of  their  errour ;  not  because  he  did  not  believe 
Rome  to  have  inherited  the  Apostolic  teaching — for  we 
have  seen  to  the  contrary — but  because  Rome,  mixed 
up  as  she  was  already  with  their  discussions,  did  not 
offer  equal  guarantees  of  impartiality  as  the  Apostolic 
churches  of  the  East. 

St.  Augustine,  who  did  not  even  recognize  the  right  of 
Rome  to  interfere  v/ith  the  discussion  of  mere  matters  of 
discipline  in  the  African  Church,  was  still  further  re- 
moved from  recognizing  her  doctrinal  authority.  In 
many  of  his  writings  he  sets  forth  the  rule  of  faith,  and 
never  in  that  connection  does  he  mention  the  doctrinal 
authority  of  the  Church  of  Rome.  In  his  eyes,  the  rule 
of  faith  is  the  constant  and  unanimous  consent  of  all  the 
Apostolic  churches.  Ilis  doctrine  is  the  same  as  that 
of  Tertullian,  and  it  has  been  copied,  so  to  speak,  by  1-7^- 
cent  Lirinensis,  whose  admirable  Commonitorium  sums 
up  perfectly  the  doctrine  of  the  first  five  centuries  upon 
this  fundamental  question.  In  vicAv  of  this  great  doctrine 
so  clearly  stated  by  the  Fathers,  and  in  which  not  the 
faintest  foreshadowing  of  Roman  authority  is  to  be  found 
— a  doctrine,  on  the  contrary,  diametrically  opposed  to 
this  pretended  authority — it  is  difiicult  to  understand  how 
the  partisans  of  the  Papacy  have  ventured  to  invent  their 
system  ;  for  they  must  have  known  that  they  were  thus 
putting  themselves  iu  direct  opposition  to  all  Catholic 
tradition. 

Romish  theologians  quote  with  much  pomp  and  cir- 


THE  PAP  ACT.  179 

cumstance  two  other  passages  from  St.  Augustine.  In 
the  first,  this  Father,  speaking  to  the  Pelagians,*  says : 
"  As  regards  your  cause  two  councils  have  been  sent  to 
the  Apostolic  See.  Rescripts  hi  ve  returned ;  the  case  is 
finished — may  it  please  God  tliat  also  the  errour  be  so  !" 

The  advocates  of  the  Papacy  thus  translate  this  passage : 
"  Home  has  spoken — the  case  is  finished  ;  Roma  locuta 
est — causa finita  est. '''*  This  expression,  Rome  Aas  sjooA'en. 
— Roma  locuta  est,  is  a  n^ere  invention.  It  does  not  occur 
in  St.  Augustine.  The  other — the  case  is  finished — is 
there.     We  shall  presently  see  what  it  means. 

The  second  passage,  similar  to  the  first,  is  thus  con- 
ceived :  "  Your  cause  is  finished,"  he  said  to  the  Pelagi- 
ans,! "  by  a  competent  judgment  of  the  bishops  in  general ; 
there  is  nothing  for  you  to  do  except  to  submit  to  the 
sentence  that  has  been  given  ;  or  to  repress  your  restless 
turbulence  if  you  cannot  submit !" 

The  first  text  dates  back  to  the  year  419,  when  the 
Pelagians  had  been  condemned  by  two  African  councils 
and  by  Pope  Innocent  I.  The  second  is  of  the  year 
421,  when  eighteen  Pelagian  bishops  had  appealed  from 
this  sentence  to  a  general  council.  According  to  this  text, 
say  the  Romish  theologians,  the  condemnation  of  the 
Pope,  confirming  that  of  the  African  councils,  had  a  doc- 
trinal authority  from  which  there  was  no  appeal  to  a  gen- 
eral council,  and  therefore  Rome  enjoyed  a  superiour  and 
final  authority  in  dogmatic  questions. 

These  inferences  are  not  just.  In  the  first  place,  St. 
Auficustine  did  not  re2:ard  a  sentence  of  Rome  as  final. 
Thus,  speaking  of  the  question  of  rebaptism,  he  asserts 
that  St.  Cyprian  had  a  right  to  oppose  his  belief  to  that 
of  Pope  Stephen  ;  and  he  says  that  he  himself  would 
not  give  so  positive  an  opinion  on  that  point  if  a  general 
council  had  not  settled  it.  ;j;     At  tlie  same  time  he  admits 

•  St.  Aug.  Serm.  131,  Pe  Verb.  Evang.  +  St.  Aug.  adv.  JuUaD,  Lib.  III. 

\  St.  Aug.  de  Bapti»mate  adv.  Donat.  de  Baptismate  adv.  Petil. 


180  THE  PAPACY 

that  Stephen  had  with  him  the  majority.  He  says  to  the 
Donatists,  that  after  having  been  condemned  by  the  coun- 
cil of  Rome,  they  had  one  resource  left — an  appeal  to  the 
plenary  or  ceeumenical  council.*  It  thus  appears  that 
he  did  not  regard  the  sentence  of  the  Pope,  even  given 
in  council,  as  final  and  without  appeal. 

It  must  be  remarked,  moreover,  that  in  the  case  of 
the  Pelagians,  St.  Augustine  only  once  mentioned  a  sen- 
tence from  Rome — in  the  first  text  quoted.  In  the  second 
text,  and  everywhere  else,  he  only  speaks  of  a  judgment 
given  by  all  the  bishops ;  particularly  those  of  the  East,  f 
This,  then,  is  St.  Augustine's  argument :  "  You  have  been 
condemned  everywhere — in  the  East  and  in  the  West — 
why  then  appeal  to  the  Church  in  council,  when  all  the 
churches  unanimously  condemn  you  ?"  The  Pelagians 
relied  on  a  sentence  in  their  favour  given  by  Pope  Zosi- 
mus,  Innocent's  successor.  How  does  Augustine  answer 
them  ?  "  If  I  should  concede  (what  is  not  true)  that  the 
Roman  Church  passed  this  judgment  upon  Celestius  and 
Pelagius,  and  that  she  approved  their  doctrines,  it  would 
only  follow  that  the  Roman  clergy  were  prevaricators.  J  " 
This  answer  of  St.  Augustine  overthrows  the  whole  the- 
ory that  the  Ultramontanes  would  build  upon  this  enlarg- 
ed and  distorted  text.  He  did  not  exclude  Rome  in  the 
judgment  given  against  the  Pelagians,  because  that 
church  is  Apostolic  and  a  part  of  the  Church  Catholic ;  yet 
his  argument  is  wholly  summed  up  in  the  following  words: 
"  Where  will  you  go  ?"  he  says  to  the  Pelagians,  "  Do 
you  not  see,  wherever  you  turn,  the  army  of  Jesus  Christ 
arrayed  against  you  the  world  over ;  at  Constantinople 
quite  as  much  as  in  Africa  and  in  the  most  remote 
lands ?"§ 

Beside  all  this,  another  proof  that  even  at  Rome  as  well 
as  elsewhere  in  the  church,  the  sentence  of  Innocent  I. 

•  Aug.  Epist.  4.  +  St.  Aug.  Lib.  I.  adv.  Julian. 

%  lb.    Lib.  IL  S  lb. 


THE   PAPACY.  181 

was  not  regarded  as  terminating  the  case  is  found  in 
the  fact  that,  after  his  sentence,  the  case  was  reexamined 
at  Rome  itself  by  Zosimua,  the  successor  of  Innocent,  by 
the  several  churches  in  a  great  number  of  synods  ;  and 
finally*  by  the  (Ecumenical  Council  of  Ephesus,  which 
judged  the  case  and  confirmed  the  sentence  given  at 
Rome  and  in  all  other  places  where  it  had  been  examined. 

When  we  are  told  how  Pope  Innocent  I.  happened 
to  be  called  upon  to  give  an  opinion  in  the  case  of  Pela- 
gius,  we  see  very  clearly  that  the  Romish  theologians 
have  misapplied  the  text. 

The  African  bishops  had  condemned  the  errours  of  Pe- 
lagius  in  two  councils,  without  a  thought  of  Rome  or  its 
doctrine.  The  Pelagians  then  set  up,  to  oppose  them,  the 
alleged  faith  of  Rome,  which  they  said  harmonized  with 
their  own.  Then  the  African  bishops  wrote  to  Innocent 
to  ask  him  whether  this  assertion  of  the  Pelagians  was 
true.  They  were  the  rather  moved  to  this  that  the  Pe- 
lagians had  great  influence  at  Rome,  f  They  did  not 
write  to  the  Pope  to  ask  of  him  a  sentence  that  should 
guide  them,  but  that  they  might  silence  those  who  claim- 
ed that  heresy  was  maintained  at  Rome.  Innocent  con- 
demned it,  and  therefore  Augustine  says :  "  You  pre- 
tended that  Rome  was  for  you ;  Rome  condemns  you ; 
you  have  also  been  condemned  by  all  the  other  churches ; 
hence  the  case  is  finished."  Instead  of  asking  a  decision 
from  Rome,  the  African  bishops  pointed  out  to  the  Pope 
the  course  he  should  pursue  in  this  afiair.  \ 

Here  then  again  have  the  Romish  theologians  not  only 
abused  the  textof  St.  Augustine,  but  also  invented  a  part 
of  it  to  suit  the  necessities  of  their  cause. 

Another  text  which  at  first  sight  seems  very  favourable 

♦  Epist.  Cone.  Ephes.  ad  Cselest.  y.  et  St.  Pro3p.  Opera,  Phot.  Blblioth.  Cardinal 
Noris.     Hist.  Pelag.  Lib.  II.  cap.  ix.  Rom.  ed. 

t  EpUt.  Synod  Carthag.  ad  Innocent  int.  St.  Aug.  Op.  Aug.,  Ep.  191  and  194, 
Possld.,  Int.  Op.  Aug.  St.  Proap.  Chron.  ad  ann.  418. 

%  Eplst.  quinque  EpUcop.  int.  Aug.  Op. 


182 


TEE    PAPACY. 


to  Romish  pretensions,  is  that  of  St.  Optatus  of  Melevia, 
which  is  quoted  on  all  occasions  by  those  theologians. 
Reasonably  interpreted,  this  text  is  no  more  in  their  favour 
than  those  of  the  other  Fathers.  The  holy  bishop  of 
Melevia  was  opposing  the  Donatists  who  had  established  a 
bishopric  at  Rome.  He  wished  to  prove  to  them  that  this 
bishopric  was  not  legitimate.  To  do  this  it  was  neces- 
sary to  prove  that  the  only  legitimate  bishopric  was  that 
which  had  descended  in  direct  line  from  the  Apostles — for 
there  was  but  one  only  Apostolate  of  which  Peter  typified 
the  unity,  and  nothing  outside  of  that  Apostolic  see — that 
is,  this  apostolate — could  claim  to  be  legitimate.  St.  Op- 
tatus, therefore,  thus  addresses  his  adversary :  * 

"  Thou  canst  not  deny  it — thou  knowest  that  the  bish- 
op's chair  was  first  given  to  Peter  in  the  city  of  Rome  ; 
upon  that  chair  sat  Peter  the  chief  of  all  the  Apostles ; 
thou  knowest  why  he  was  called  Peter;  that  thus  in  that 
one  see,  unity  should  be  preserved  by  all ;  lest  each  of 
the  other  Apostles  should  claim  a  separate  see  for  him- 
self ;  and  that  he  should  be  schismatic  and  sinful  who 
should   establish    another   bishopric    beside   that   only 


see." 


*'  For  the  sake  of  unity,"  he  elsewhere  says,f  the  bless- 
ed "  Peter  (for  whom  it  had  been  enough  had  he  only 
obtained  pardon  after  denying  his  Master)  deserved  to  be 
preferred  to  all  the  Apostles,  and  alone  received  the  keys 
of  the  kingdom  of  heaven  to  impart  them  to  others." 

St.  Optatus  was  arguing  against  a  man  who  denied  the 
unity  of  the  ministry  and  its  Apostolic  origin.  In  order 
to  convince  him  he  holds  up  before  him  Rome — the  only 
Apostolic  church  of  the  West  wdiose  origin  was  incon- 
testable. He  shows  him  that  Peter,  who  was  the  type  of 
sacerdotal  miity,  founded  the  see  of  Rome ;  that,  conse- 
quently, he  must  be  with  this  see,  if  he  would  be  in  the 
unity  and  would  give  an  Apostolic  character  to  his  min- 

•  S.  Optat.  Lib.  II.  cent.  Farm.  t  lb.  Lib.  I.  cont.  Farm. 


THE  PAPACY.  183 

istry ;  but  from  this  to  an  authority  over  the  whole 
Church  is  a  long  step. 

The  whole  argument  of  St.  Optatus  proves  this  to  have 
been  his  idea  in  the  preceding  texts. 

"  Ourangel,"*  he  says,"  dates  back  to  St.  Peter — yours 
only  to  Victor,  f  Address  yourself,  if  you  like,  to  the 
seven  angels  which  are  in  Asia  ;  to  our  colleagues — those 
churches  to  whom  St.  John  wrote,  and  with  which  you 
are  evidently  not  in  communion.  Now  all  outside  of 
these  seven  churches  is  foreign.  If  you  have  any  one  of 
the  angels  of  the  seven  churches  with  whom  you  are  one^ 
you  commune  througli  him  with  the  other  angels ;  through 
them  with  the  churches,  and  through  the  churches 
with  us.  Such  not  being  the  case,  you  have  not  the 
characteristics  of  a  Catholic  church — you  are  no  true 
Catholics.'''' 

Such  is  a  faithful  analysis  of  the  argument  of  St.  Op- 
tatus. He  does  not  seek  in  his  work  to  prove  that  the 
legitimate  Bishop  of  Rome  had  universal  authority — he 
only  proves  that  he  was  descended  in  direct  line  from  the 
Apostles,  and  that  his  Donatist  rival  was  illegitimate. 
He  proves  that  all  the  Apostolic  churches  of  the  East 
were  in  communion  with  the  Apostolic  Bishop  of  Rome, 
and  that,  consequently,  the  Donatists  were  not  in  Catho- 
lic or  universal  unity.  We  really  cannot  see  how  such 
teaching  can  be  quoted  to  support  the  pretensions  of 
the  modern  Papacy.  Nay,  more.  We  may  certainly 
justly  quote  it  against  them. 

We  have  now  reviewed  the  strongest  texts  upon  which 
the  Ultramontanes  and  modern  Galileans  have  rested 
their  theories  about  the  Papacy.  The  former  see  in  tliem 
the  papal  autocracy,  the  latter  a  limited  monarchy  of 
Avhich  the  Pope  is  the  head — not  absolute  nor  infalli- 
ble, but  subject  to  the  laws  and  decrees  of  tlie  coun- 

*  He  alludes  to  the  angels  of  the  churches,  which  in  the  Aixicalypse  mean  the 
bishops, 
t  This  was  the  bishop  the  Donatists  h  j,d  established  at  Uome. 


184  THE  PAPACY. 

cila.  Both  have  misinterpreted  the  texts  and  have  drawn 
false  conclusions  from  them ;  it  would  be  sufficient  to  set 
them  the  one  against  the  other  in  order  to  confound 
them.  The  only  facts  proved  by  the  texts  are  the  fol- 
lowing : 

First.  St.  Peter  was  i\iQ  Jlrst  among  the  Apostles ;  but 
this  title  gave  him  no  authority. 

Secondly.   Peter  cooperated  with  St.  Paul  in  founding 
the  Church  of  Rome. 

Thirdly.  This  Church  is  consequently  an  Apostolic  see. 

The  advocates  of  papal  authority  would  conclude  from 
these  facts,  that  the  Bishops  of  Rome,  as  successors  of 
St.  Peter,  have  inherited  that  Apostle's  prerogatives. 
But  the  texts  prove  neither  the  prerogatives  of  Peter  nor 
their  descent  to  the  Bishops  of  Rome.  That  Bishop  is  no 
more  the  heir  of  St.  Peter  than  of  St.  Paul.  He  merely 
holds  his  bishopric  in  the  same  church  where  those  Apos- 
tles exercised  their  apostleship.  Peter  and  Paul  died  at 
Rome,  but  if  by  their  death  they  glorified  the  Church,  non 
constat  that  they  have  bequeathed  their  apostolate  any 
more  than  the  other  apostles  have  bequeathed  theirs  to 
the  churches  in  which  they  died.  Those  prerogatives 
which  were  intended  to  be  perpetuated  in  the  Church, 
have  been  transmitted  not  by  the  death  of  the  Apostles, 
but  by  ordination.  It  is  to  this  end  that  they  ordained 
and  established  bishops  in  all  the  churches  they  found- 
ed ;  at  Rome  as  much  as  anywhere  else.  Accordingly, 
as  appears  from  the  records  of  the  first  centuries,  the 
Jirst  Bishop  of  Rome  was  Linus,  and  not  St.  Peter. 
The  Roman  episcopate,  therefore,  only  dates  back  to 
Linus,  and  that  episcopate  draws  its  origin  from  the 
Apostolate  ;  from  Paul  first,  who  ordained  the  first  two 
bishops,  then  from  Peter,  who  ordained  Clement,  who 
was  chosen  to  fill  the  see  of  Rome  after  the  death  of 
Anencletus,  and  long  after  Peter's  death.  The  Bish- 
ops of  Antioch  are  traced  in  precisely  the  same  manner 


THE  PAPACY.  185 

to  the  apostolate  of  Peter  and  Paul ;  those  of  Alexandria 
also  go  back  to  Peter  by  St.  Mark,  who  was  the  delegate 
and  disciple  of  that  Apostle.  The  other  Apostolic  Sees, 
Jerusalem,  Smyrna,  Byzantium,  etc.,  can  be  traced  like 
that  of  Rome  to  some  one  of  the  Apostles.  Their  epis- 
copate is  thus  Apostolic^  but  it  is  not  the  Apostolate. 

Before  concluding  our  examination  of  the  Fathers  of 
the  fourth  and  fifth  centuries,  we  must  mention,  in  the 
way  of  objection,  some  texts  of  St.  Jerome  that  seem  fa- 
vourable to  such  papal  extravagances.  "We  must  premise : 

First.  That  even  should  the  words  of  this  Father  be 
taken  literally,  they  could  prove  nothing,  since  he  would 
be  alone  against  all ;  and  the  opinion  of  a  single  Father 
proves  absolutely  nothing  as  to  Catholic  doctrine. 

Secondly.  That  these  texts  of  St.  Jerome  cannot  be 
taken  literally  without  making  him  contradict  himself. 

Writing  to  Pope  Damasus,  his  friend  and  protector, 
Jerome  thus  expresses  himself:*  "  Although  your  great- 
ness awes  me,  your  goodness  reassures.  I  ask  of  the 
priest  the  saving  sacrifice — of  the  shepherd  the  help  he 
owes  to  the  sheep.  I  speak  to  the  successor  of  the  fisher- 
man, to  the  disciple  of  the  cross.  Following  no  chief 
save  Christy  I  am  united  in  communion  with  your  Holiness ; 
that  is  to  say,  with  the  see  of  Peter.  I  know  the 
Church  is  built  upon  this  rock.  Who  eats  not  of  the 
lamb  in  this  house  is  defiled.  Whoever  dwells  not  in 
Noah's  ark  will  perish  at  the  time  of  the  deluge.  I  do 
not  know  Vitalis ;  I  repel  Meletius  ;  I  ignore  Paulinus.f 
Whoever  does  not  reap  with  you,  scatters  his  harvest ; 
that  is,  he  who  is  not  of  Christ  is  of  Antichrist."  Then  he 
asks  Damasus  if  he  shall  speak  of  the  divine  hypostases^ 
or  be  silent. 

And  addressing  Damasus  or  the  Roman  ladies,  partic- 


*  Si  HIeron.  EpU.  67  ad  Damns. 

t  This  alludes  to  the  disReneioiiB  in  the  church  of  Antioch. 


186  THE  PAPACY. 

ularly  Eustochia  Jerome  speaks  in  very  nearly  the  same 
terms  of  the  Roman  see. 

Should  his  words  be  taken  literally,  or  should  we  not 
rather  see  in  them  only  a  bit  of  flattery  addressed  to 
the  Pope — the  rather  that  Damasus  had  given  to  Jerome 
pledges  not  only  of  protection  but  of  friendship  ?  At 
all  events,  it  is  certain  that  we  cannot  take  them  liter- 
ally without  making  St.  Jerome  contradict  himself. 
We  notice,  in  the  first  place,  that  he  recognized  but  one 
First  in  the  Church — Jesus  Christ ;  that  he  calls  the 
Apostle  Peter  the  rock  on  which  the  Church  is  built, 
asserting  at  the  same  time  that  Christ  alone  is  that  rock, 
and  that  the  title  of  secondary  stones  belongs  equally  to 
all  the  Apostles  and  to  the  Prophets.  "  The  stoties,''^*  he 
says,  "  must  be  understood  to  mean  the  Prophets  and 
the  Apostles.  The  Church  is  the  rock  founded  upon  the 
most  solid  stone."  He  teachea  that  the  Church  is  rep- 
resented by  the  Apostles  and  Prophets,  meaning  that  it 
is  established  upon  both — "  super  prophetas  et  apostolos 
const Uuta.''''  Yet,  in  his  letter  to  Damasus,  he  seems  to 
say  that  Peter  is  the  foundation  of  the  Church,  to  the 
exclusion  of  the  others. 

But  did  he  not,  perhaps,  mean  to  imply  that  Peter  had 
some  superiority  as  a  foundation  of  the  Church  ?  Not 
so  ;  for  he  clearly  says  the  contrary  :  "  The  solidity  of 
the  Church,"  he  says,  "  is  supported  upon  them  (the 
Apostles  and  Prophets)  equally. f  He  calls  Peter  jormce 
of  the  Apostles  ;  but  he  also  says  :  "  He  (Christ)  shows 
us  Peter  and  Andrew — princes  of  the  Apostles — estab- 
lished as  teachers  of  the  Gospel." 

Was  this  principality  of  Peter  an  authority,  as  might 
be  inferred  from  the  letter  to  Damasus  ?  Jerome  an- 
swers that  q,uestion  in  the  following  passage :];  "  What  can 
be  claimed  for  Aristotle  that  we  do  not  find  in  Paul  ? 

•  8.  Hleron,  adr.  Jovinian.  t  8.  Hieron.  adv.  Jovin. 

%  S.  Hieron.  adv.  Pelag.  lib.  L  ch.  4. 


THE  FAFACY.  187 

for  Plato  that  does  not  beloncr  to  Peter  ?  As  Plato  was 
the  prince  of  philosophers^  so  Peter  was  the  prince  of 
Apostles,  upon  Avhom  the  Church  of  the  Lord  was  built 
as  upon  a  solid  rock."  Elsewhere,*  he  represents  St. 
Paul  saying  ;  "  I  am  in  nothing  inferior  to  Peter ;  for 
we  were  ordained  by  the  same  God  for  the  same  minis- 
try." Clearly,  if  inferior  in  nothing^  (in  nullo,)  then 
equal  in  every  thing. 

The  Romish  theologians  cannot  deny  that  the  Fathers 
have  generally  taught  the  equality  of  the  Apostles 
among  themselves ;  on  this  point,  tradition  is  unani- 
mous. No  Father  of  the  Church  has  taught  any  other 
doctrine.  But  these  theologians  affect  to  give  no  weight 
to  so  important  a  fact.  They  try  to  evade  the  over- 
whelming testimony  of  the  Fathers  by  this  distinction  : 
the  Apostles,  they  say,  were  equal  in  respect  of  the 
apostolate^  but  not  hi  respect  of  the  primacy. \  But  clear- 
ly, such  a  primacy,  as  it  is  understood  at  Rome,  cannot 
coexist  with  any  equality  whatsoever.  The  Fathers  can- 
not teach  the  equality  of  the  Apostles  without  denying 
the  superiority  of  any  one  of  them.  They  teach  that 
equality  absolutely.  To  resort,  then,  to  a  distinction  that 
takes  away  this  absolute  character,  is  to  falsify  their 
testimony. 

After  all,  has  St.  Jerome  conceded  to  the  see  of  Rome 
any  exceptional  prerogatives,  as  we  might  be  led  to 
think  from  his  letters  to  Damasus  and  Eustochia  ?  Let 
us  see  what  he  says  in  another  letter  :J 

*'  We  must  not  believe  that  the  city  of  Rome  is  a  differ- 
ent church  from  that  of  the  whole  world.  Gaul,  Britain, 
Africa,  Persia,  the  East,  India,  all  the  barbarous  nations, 


*  S.  Hieron.  Comment.  In  Epist.  ad  Galat. 

+  Lest  we  be  accused  of  falsely  attributing  this  distinction  to  the  Romish  party, 
let  us  here  say  that  it  may  be  found  in  the  works  of  a  theologian  of  great  authority 
in  that  party,  Father  Perrone.  Tract  de  Loc.  Theol.  part  1st,  sect.  2d,  chap  1. 
Difficult,  respons.  ad  6. 

%  a  Hieron.  Epist.  146  ad  £7. 


188  THE  PAPACY. 

adore  Jesus  Christ,  and  observe  one  and  the  same  nde 
of  truth.  If  one  is  looking/  for  authority,  the  %oorld  is 
greater  than  one  city.  Wherever  there  is  a  Bishop,  be 
he  at  Rome  or  at  Eugubium,  at  Constantinople  or  at 
Rhegium,  at  Alexandria  or  at  Tanis,  he  has  the  same 
authority,  the  same  merit,  because  he  has  the  same 
priesthood.  The  power  that  riches  give,  and  the  low 
estate  to  which  poverty  reduces,  render  a  Bishop  neither 
greater  nor  less." 

It  cannot  be  more  distinctly  stated  that  the  rule  f)f 
truth  dwells  only  in  the  entire  episcopal  body,  and  not 
at  Rome  ;  that  the  Bishop  of  Rome  is  no  more,  as  bish- 
op, than  the  humblest  bishop  of  the  Church ;  that  the 
power  he  possessed  because  of  his  riches,  did  not  make 
him  superiour  to  the  rest.  One  might  almost  think  that 
St.  Jerome  exerted  himself,  in  all  his  works,  to  refute 
his  own  letters  to  Damasus. 

But,  say  the  Roman  theologians,  the  papal  preroga- 
tives were  so  well  recognized,  that  even  the  heretic  Jo- 
vinian  mentions  them.  And,  in  fact,  in  order  to  prove 
to  St.  Jerome  that  the  estate  of  marriage  was  superior 
to  that  of  virginity,  he  says  :  "  St.  John  was  a  virgin, 
and  St.  Peter  was  married ;  why,  then,  did  Christ  prefer 
St.  Peter  to  St.  John  to  build  his  Church  on  himf''  The 
Romanists  stop  here,  but  do  not  give  us  St.  Jerome's 
answer  to  Jovinian — a  proceeding  not  creditable  to 
their  good  faith,  as  we  shall  see.  Here  is  St.  Jerome's 
answer  :*  "  If  he  chose  Peter  rather  than  John  for  this 
honourable  distinction,  it  was  that  it  was  more  expedient 
not  to  confer  it  upon  a  young  man,  nay  a  child,  as  John 
was,  in  order  to  excite  no  jealousy.  But  if  Peter  be  an 
Apostle,  so  is  John  also.  The  one  is  married,  the  other 
is  virgin ;  but  Peter  is  only  an  Apostle,  and  John  is  an 
Apostle,  an  Evangelist,  and  a  Prophet." 

St.  Jerome  could  not  have  reasoned  thus,  if  he  had  had 

*  S.  Hieron.  Ub.  L  adv.  Jovln. 


THE  PAPAQY.  189 

the  same  idea  of  St.  Peter's  primacy  as  is  held  at  Rome 
concerning  that  of  the  Pope.  His  reasoning  against 
Jovinian  would  have  been  worthless  if  that  heretic  had 
considered  Peter's  primacy  otherwise  than  as  2.  priority ^ 
in  virtue  of  which  he  was  the  representative  of  the  Apos- 
tolic college,  and  the  type  of  unity;  for  he  (St.  Jerome) 
grounds  his  argument  upon  this  conceded  point :  that  St. 
Peter  was  but  an  Apostle  like  the  others.  K  Jovinian 
had  believed  that  Peter  was  any  thing  more  than  this, 
St.  Jerome's  argument  would  have  been  ridiculous.  And 
if  St.  Peter  had  been  the  chief — the  prince  of  the  Apos- 
tles in  the  sense  that  Rome  now  gives  to  these  expres- 
sions— would  St.  Jerome  have  laid  down  as  the  first 
principle  of  his  argument,  that  St.  John  was  superiour  to 
St.  Peter,  because  of  his  characters  of  Evangelist  and 
Prophet  ? 

After  the  review  we  have  given  of  the  constant  and 
universal  tradition  of  the  Church,  during  the  first  five 
centuries,  we  may  well  be  amazed  to  hear  Cardinal  Orsi* 
assert,  that  nothing  could  be  opposed  to  papal  preten- 
sions except  a  few  isolated  texts,  which  do  not  contain 
the  true  sense  of  Catholic  tradition  ;  to  hear  all  the  ad- 
vocat  s  of  the  Papacy  declare  that  Catholic  tradition  is 
in  favour  of  their  system,  especially  in  the  first  centu- 
ries ! 

*  Orsi,  de  Infallib.  Bom.  Pontit 


190  THE   PAPACY. 


V. 

OF  THE    AUTHORITT   OF   THE    BISHOPS    OF    ROME    DURING 
THE   SIXTH,    SEVENTH,  AND   EIGHTH   CENTURIES. 


E  have  already  seen  that  the  oecumenical  coun- 
cils of  Constantinople  and  Chalcedon  had 
given  to  the  Bishop  of  Constantinople  the 
second  place  in  the  Catholic  episcopacy, 
and  that  St.  Leo,  Bishop  of  Rome,  had  opposed  this  law, 
as  changing  the  hierarchal  order  established  at  the  first 
CEcumenical  Council  of  Nicea. 

We  may  believe  that  St.  Leo  was  indeed  only  moved 
to  this  opposition  by  his  respect  for  the  canons.  But 
his  successors,  probably,  had  another  motive.  They 
feared  lest  the  Bishop  of  Constantinople  should  soon 
supplant  them  in  the  primacy.  Such  fears  were  the 
more  reasonable  that  the  Council  of  Chalcedon  had 
only  given  as  the  reason  of  the  primacy  the  dignity  of 
the  city  of  Rome,  the  capital  of  the  empire.  Now  Rome 
was  daily  growing  less  influential.  The  Roman  empire 
in  the  West  had  fallen  under  the  blows  of  the  barba- 
rians ;  Rome  was  passing  successively  through  the 
hands  of  various  tribes,  who  destroyed  every  thing — 
even  to  the  signs  of  her  former  greatness.  Constan- 
tinople had  become  the  only  centre  of  the  empire, 
and  increased  in  splendour  in  proportion  as  Rome 
was  humbled.  On  the  other  hand,  the  emperor  added 
daily  to  the  prerogatives  of  the  Bishops  of  Constan- 
tinople, thus  increasing  their  influence,  while  they  quite 


THE   PAPACY.  191 

forgot  the  Bishops  of  Rome.  It  was  therefore  nat- 
ural that  the  Roman  Bishops  should  be  jealous  of  tho 
prerogatives  and  honoui's  of  their  brethren  of  Con- 
stantinople, and  that  jealousy  betrayed  itself  in  the 
relations  necessary  to  be  preserved  between  them.  It 
was  no  less  natural  that  the  Bishops  of  Constantinople 
should  show  some  decrree  of  arrosrance  toward  those  of 
Rome,  who  had  merely  the  semblance  of  a  primacy  and 
the  memories  of  a  glory  that  each  day  left  more  dim. 

Such  w^s  the  beginning  of  the  struggles  between  the 
sees  of  Rome  and  Constantinople  during  the  sixth,  sev- 
enth, and  eighth  centuries,  and  the  motive  that  impel- 
led the  Roman  Bishops  to  aid  in  the  establishment  of  a 
new  Western  empire,  in  which,  thanks  to  the  new 
emperors,  they  might  so  enlarge  their  prerogatives, 
that  they  should  eclipse  those  of  the  see  of  Constanti- 
nople. 

We  must  not  lose  sic;ht  of  these  general  consider- 
ations  if  we  would  comprehend  the  history  of  the  Pa- 
pacy and  those  struggles  which  led  to  the  rupture  be- 
tween the  Eastern  and  Western  churches. 

No  one  denies  that  the  emperors  of  Constantinople 
strove  to  increase  the  influence  of  the  bishops  of  that 
city.  They  issued  numberless  decrees  for  this  purpose ; 
and  the  Emperor  Zeno  even  made  the  twenty-eighth 
canon  of  the  Council  of  Chalcedon  a  law  of  the  state. 
The  heads  of  the  new  empire  of  the  East  thought  that 
they  were  adding  to  theirbwn  glory  when  they  surround- 
ed the  see  of  their  capital  with  splendour  and  power.  In 
consequence  of  his  position,  the  Bishop  of  Constanti- 
nople was  the  sole  medium  of  intercourse  not  only  be- 
tween them  and  the  other  Oriental,  but  also  the  West- 
ern bishops.  He  became  so  powerful,  tliat  there  grew 
up  a  custom  to  choose  him  from  the  members  of  the  im- 
perial or  the  most  illustrious  families. 


192  THE  PAPACY. 

The  Bishop  of  Constantinople  had,  at  first,  only  enjoy- 
ed an  honorary  title  in  virtue  of  the  third  canon  of  the 
second  cecumenical  council,  (381.)  Some  time  after, 
the  Emperor  Theodosius  the  younger,  made  two  laws 
for  the  purpose  of  giving  him  a  real  authority  over  the 
provinces  of  Asia  and  Illyria.  The  Council  of  Chalce- 
don  gave  its  ecclesiastical  sanction  to  these  laws,  (451,) 
and  extended  the  authority  of  the  Bishop  of  Constanti- 
nople over  PontuB  and  Thrace,  in  consequence  of  the 
ecclesiastical  troubles  that  afflicted  these  countries.  The 
Bishop  of  Constantinople  himself  thought  himself  en- 
titled to  extend  his  jurisdiction  over  the  other  Patri- 
archal sees  of  the  East. 

To  trace  the  beginning  of  these  undei-takings  we 
must  go  back  to  the  fifth  century. 

In  476  Acacius  was  Bishop  of  Constantinople,  and 
Simplicius  Bishop  of  Rome.  Basiliscus  having  driven 
Zeno  from  the  imperial  throne,  declared  himself  in  fa- 
vour of  the  heretics  condemned  by  the  Council  of  Chal- 
cedon,  and  recalled  from  exile  Timothy  ^lurus,  the 
heretic  Bishop  of  Alexandria,  and  Peter  the  Fuller, 
heretic  Bishop  of  Antioch,  both  canonically  deposed. 
These  churches  were  filled  with  confusion,  and  a  new 
council  was  talked  of,  to  revoke  the  decrees  of  Chalce- 
don.  Simplicius  wrote  to  Basiliscus  against  the  here- 
tics, and  at  the  same  time  applied  to  Acacius  to  obtain 
from  the  Emperor  the  expulsion  of  Timothy,  and  to  dis- 
suade that  prince  from  convoking  a  new  council.*  But 
Basiliscus  was  overthrown,  and  Zeno  reascended  the 
imperial  throne.  Simplicius  at  once  wrote  to  him, 
praying  him  to  expel  the  heretics,  especially  Timothy 
of  Alexandria. 

Acacius  sent  a  deacon  to  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  that  he 
might  consult  with  him  upon  the  best  means  to  remedy 

•  See  Slmplic.  EpUt.  In  Labbe's  CoUection.    Erag.  Hiat. 


THE  PAPACY.  193 

the  evils  of  the  churches.  Simplicius  replied,  that  under 
God,  the  Emperor  only  could  remedy  them ;  and  advised 
that  he  should  issue  a  decree  exiling  Timothy,  and  John 
of  Antioch,  who  had  supplanted  Peter  the  heretic  and 
was  no  better  than  he  had  been ;  in  a  word,  all  the 
heretical  bishops  opposed  to  the  Council  of  Chalcedon. 

It  is  noteworthy  that  if  the  universal  and  absolute 
authority  of  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  now  ascribed  to  him, 
had  been  recognized  at  that  time,  he  would  not  have 
needed  imperial  intervention  to  reestablish  order  and 
respect  for  the  laws  in  the  churches.  The  usurpers  of 
bishoprics  and  the  deposed  bishops  could  not  have  had 
80  numerous  partisans. 

Simplicius  invoked  the  good  offices  of  Acacius  with 
Zeno  in  order  to  obtain  the  decree  he  desired,  and  to 
cause  those  to  be  excommunicated  who  were  to  be  ex- 
iled. The  Emperor  issued  the  decree  that  Simplicius 
and  Acacius  asked  for,  and  convoked  a  council  of  East- 
ern bishops,  who  excommunicated  the  heretical  bishops, 
and  particularly  Peter  and  John,  the  usurpers  of  the  see 
of  Antioch,  and  Timothy  of  that  of  Alexandria.  The 
council  wrote  to  Simplicius  praying  him  not  to  receive 
into  his  communion  any  of  those  who  had  been  con- 
demned. Then  Simplicius,  on  his  part,  excommunicated 
them,  and  gave  Acacius  notice  of  his  sentence,  entreat- 
ing him  at  the  same  time  to  solicit  from  the  Emperor 
the  execution  of  the  decree  of  proscription. 

Timothy  ^lurus,  already  feeble  through  age  and  in- 
firmity, was  permitted  to  die  at  Alexandria.  After  his 
death,  his  supporters  elected  Peter,  surnamed  Mongus, 
or  "  the  Hoarse  ;"  but  the  Emperor  Zeno  had  him  driven 
away,  and  reestablished  in  the  chair  of  Alexandria  Tim- 
othy Salofaciolus,  who  had  been  unjustly  expelled.*  The 

•  The  Roman  court  is  now  so  little  acquainted  with  these  facts,  that  in  a  work 
published  by  it  against  the  Eastern  Church,  over  the  name  of  Mr.  Pitzipios,  it  makes 
Peter  the  Hoarse  a  Patriarch  of  Antioch.    See  Part  I.  ch.  2. 


194  THE  FAPACY. 

three  Bishops  of  Rome,  Constantinople,  and  Alexandria 
were  thus  in  perfect  communion,  and  mutually  pledged 
themselves  thereof. 

But  the  Bishop  of  Antioch,  who  had  taken  the  place 
of  the  two  usurpers,  Peter  and  John,  was  now  killed  in 
a  riot.  For  that  church  was  sadly  divided,  and  the  re- 
ligious parties  carried  on  a  war  to  the  knife  there.  To 
obtain  pardon  of  the  Emperor  they  now  agreed  to  give 
up  their  right  of  election,  and  asked  that  Zeno  should 
himself  choose  a  bishop  for  them.  He  chose  Stephen, 
who  was  consecrated  at  Constantinople  by  Acacius. 
This  choice  was  not  canonical ;  they  knew  that  at  Con- 
stantinople as  well  as  at  Rome ;  but  they  alleged  the 
peculiar  circumstances  of  the  case  .as  their  excuse,  and 
notified  the  Pope  of  what  had  occurred,  in  order  that  he 
should  not  refuse  to  enter  into  communion  with  the  new 
bishop.  Simplicius  agreed  to  what  had  been  done  by 
the  Emperor  and  Acacius,  insisting,  however,  that  such 
a  choice,  contrary  to  the  canons  of  Nicea,  should  not  es- 
tablish a  precedent.  This  was  agreed  to  at  Constanti- 
nople ;  but  it  is  certain  that  the  troubles  of  the  churches 
of  Antioch  and  Alexandria  served  to  extend  the  influ- 
ence of  the  Bishop  of  Constantinople  over  the  whole 
Eastern  Church  ;  for  the  Emperor  necessarily  interfered 
in  these  troubles,  and  availed  himself,  in  ecclesiastical 
matters,  of  the  cooperation  of  the  bishop  nearest  at 
hand,  whose  advice  he  could  most  easily  obtain.  Sim 
plicius  was  not  blind  to  the  progress  of  the  rival  see, 
and  that  is  why  he  so  carefully  appealed  to  the  canons 
to  prevent  the  interfbrence  of  Acacius  from  becoming  a 
matter  of  custom. 

Nevertheless,  upon  Stephen's  death,  the  Emperor 
chose  Calandion  to  succeed  him ;  and  Acacius  conferred 
the  ordination. 

Calandion,  according  to  custom,  wrote  a  letter  of  no- 


THE   PAPACY.  195 

tificfitlon  to  tlio  Bishop  of  Rome,  who  entered  into  com- 
munion with  him.* 

The  see  of  Alexandria,  after  the  death  of  Timothy 
Salofaciohis,  gave  greater  trouble.  John  Talaia  was 
regularly  elected  and  ordained ;  but  Acacius  declared 
against  him,  and  persuaded  the  Emperor  that  John  was 
unfit  to  be  a  bishop,  and  urged  him  to  restore  the  see 
to  Peter  the  Hoarse.  This  seemed  to  him  to  promise  a 
restoration  of  peace;  for  Peter  promised  to  abandon, 
with  his  followers,  his  opposition  to  the  Council  of  Chal- 
cedon ;  and  the  faithful  would  have  no  further  objection 
to  him  if  he  were  once  canonically  consecrated.  The 
Bishop  of  Rome  did  not  agree  with  Acacius,  and  de- 
clared that,  though  he  would  not  grant  intercommunion 
to  John  Talaia,  he  never  could  recognize  Peter  the 
Hoarse  as  the  legitimate  bishop.  Zeno  overruled  his 
opinion,  and  established  Peter ;  and  Acacius,  deceived 
by  the  orthodox  declarations  of  this  wicked  bishop, 
granted  him  communion. 

John  Talaia,  flying  from  Alexandria,  went  to  Antioch 
and  thence  to  Rome.  In  these  two  cities  he  made  the 
most  overwhelming  charges  against  Mongus,  and  was 
received  into  communion  by  Calandion  and  Simpliciua. 
He  wrote  to  Acacius  to  ask  for  his  removal ;  but  Acacius 
replied  that  he  did  not  recognize  him  as  legitimate  Bish- 
op of  Alexandria.  Simplicius  at  once  wrote  to  Acacius, 
blaming  him  for  having  granted  communion  to  Mongus.^ 
He  died  before  receiving  the  answer  of  the  Bishop  of 
Constantinople,  (483.)  He  was  succeeded  by  Felix, 
before  Avhom  John  Talaia  at  once  pleaded  his  cause. 
John  wrote  a  petition  against  Acacius ;  and  Felix  as- 
sembled a  coimcil  at  Rome,  which  decided  that  Acacius 
must  reply  to  the  petition  of  John,  and  pronounce  an 

♦  In  the  work  before  mentioned  letters  of  communion  are  confounded  with  re- 
guests  for  confirmation,  proving  that  the  Roman  court  is  no  better  acquainted 
with  canon  law  than  with  liistorical  facts.    See  Part  I.  ch.  3. 


196  THE  PAPACY. 

anathema  against  Peter  the  Hoarse.  These  decisions 
were  sent  to  the  Emperor  *  In  the  letters  that  Felix 
"wrote  to  Zeno  and  to  Acacius  he  bitterly  complains 
that  there  had  not  even  been  an  answer  to  the  letters  of 
his  predecessor  concerning  the  troubles  of  the  Church  of 
Alexandria.  Zeno,  by  mingled  terror  and  flattery,  in- 
duced the  envoys  of  Felix  to  communicate  with  Acacius 
and  Peter  Mongus;  but  the  adversaries  of  these  two 
bishops  denounced  these  legates  at  Rome,  and  they  were 
deposed.  They  had  brought  back  letters  in  which  Acacius 
and  Zeno  explained  their  conduct  respecting  Peter  Mou- 
gus,  and  denied  the  accusations  against  that  bishop. 

This  conduct  wounded  the  Pope,  who  at  once  assem- 
bled a  council  of  Italian  bishops  to  excommunicate  Aca- 
cius and  depose  him.  He  served  on  him  a  notice  of  the 
sentence,  which  was  signed,  "  Felix,  Bishop  of  the  holy 
Catholic  Church  of  Rome.'''' 

This  sentence  pronounced  against  Acacius  was  null 
and  anti-canonical,  since  it  was  rendered  outside  of  the 
district  where  the  accused  resided,  and  without  the  par- 
ticipation of  the  Eastern  bishops,  who  were  necessary 
judges  in  this  case.  The  sentence  has,  moreover,  a  very 
passionate  character ;  and  in  it  Felix  affects  to  give  to 
his  see  of  Rome  the  title  of  Catholic — that  is,  universal — 
in  order  that  his  authority  should  seem  to  extend  over 
the  whole  Church. 

From  this  we  perceive  that  if  the  Bishops  of  Rome 
did  not,  as  Gregory  the  Great  tells  us,  accept  for  their 
persons  the  title  of  oecumenical  or  universal  which  the 
Council  of  Chalcedon  is  said  to  have  offered  them,  they 
endeavoured,  shortly  after,  to  claim  for  this  see,  not  mere- 
ly an  honorary  title,  but  an  oecumenical  authority,  as  con- 
trary to  the  intentions  of  the  council  as  to  the  traditions 
of  the   entire  Church.     The  Bishop  of  Rome  showed 

«  Pelic  Epist.  Labbe's  Collection,  toL  iv.    Evag.  HIbU  EccL 


THE  PAPACY.  197 

himself  disposed  to  exaggerate  his  prerogatives,  iu  pro- 
portion as  Acacius  became  more  influential  in  the  direc- 
tion of  the  aflfairs  of  the  Eastern  Church ;  he  became 
more  angry  as  the  Bishop  of  Constantinople  treated 
him  with  more  arrogance.  Acacius  despised  the  sen- 
tence of  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  and  even  refused  to  re- 
ceive it.  Some  bishops  having  declared  against  him,  he 
caused  them  to  be  deposed ;  and  Rome,  on  her  part,  ex- 
communicated his  adherents.  After  the  death  of  Aca- 
cius, in  489,  the  dissension  respecting  him  continued. 
If  one  could  doubt  the  share  that  the  jealousy  of  Rome  had 
in  her  opposition  to  Acacius,  such  doubt  would  not  sur- 
vive the  perusal  of  what  Pope  Gelasius  wrote  on  this 
subject  in  495.  Having  received  a  letter  from  the 
bishops  of  Dardania,  in  which  he  was  informed  that 
the  partisans  of  Acacius  relied  principally,  upon  the  ir- 
regularity of  the  sentence  passed  against  him  by  the 
Italian  Council,  Gelasius  replied  to  them,  justifying  him- 
self by  the  Council  of  Chalcedon,  which,  he  claimed, 
condemned  in  advance  those  who  should  oppose  it.* 
But  this  was  precisely  the  question — whether  Acacius 
had  failed  in  the  respect  due  to  the  Council  of  Chalce- 
don, by  endeavouring  to  quiet  the  troubles  raised  in  the 
East  respecting  that  assembly.  One  evident  fact  is, 
that  Acacius,  in  his  efforts  to  settle  these  troubles,  and 
in  showing  himself  tolerant  toward  men,  had  sacrificed 
nothing:  of  the  Catholic  doctrine  defined  at  Chalcedon. 
No  less  clear  is  it  that  the  men  condemned  first  at  Con- 
stantinople, afterward  at  Rome,  had  never  been  heard 
face  to  face  with  their  accusers ;  that  they  had  numerous 
supporters;  that  they  had  been  condemned,  banished, 
and  persecuted  through  the  imperial  power,  from  which 

*  It  was  therefore  under  the  false  pretext  of  his  opposition  to  the  Council  of 
Chalcedon  that  Rome  had  deposed  Acacius,  which  belies  the  assertion  contained  In 
the  work  already  cited,  that  no  dogmatic  question  was  pending  between  Rome  and 
Constantinople  Qndcr  Acacius.    Part  I.  ch.  3. 


198  THE   PAPACY. 

the  Roman  bishops  were  incessantly  demanding  se- 
verity, as  their  letters  show.  It  is  not,  therefore,  to  be 
wondered  at  that  Acacius,  even  after  his  death,  should 
have  been  regarded  in  the  East  as  a  great  and  holy 
bishop,  and  that  the  sentence  of  the  Italian  Council 
should  have  been  considered  as  null  and  void.  Gelasius 
is  not  happy  in  his  answer  to  the  objection  of  the  bish- 
ops of  Dardania  to  the  illegality  of  this  sentence.  In 
return,  he  shows  a  great  deal  of  temper  when  he  tries 
to  confute  the  argument  drawn  in  favour  of  Acacius  from 
the  importance  of  the  Byzantine  see.  *'  We  laughed," 
he  says,*  "  at  the  prerogative  that  they  (the  Eastern 
bishops)  claim  for  Acacius  because  he  was  bishop  of  the 
imperial  city.  Did  not  the  Emperor  reside  for  a  long 
time  at  Ravenna,  Milan,  Sirmium,  and  Treves  ?  Have 
the  bishops  of  these  cities  exceeded,  on  this  account,  the 
limits  that  antiquity  has  prescribed  to  them?  If  the 
question  be  upon  the  dignity  of  cities,  the  bishops  of  a 
second  or  third-rate  see  have  more  dignity  than  the 
bishops  of  a  city  ichich  is  not  even  a  metroj^olis.  The 
power  of  the  secular  empire  is  one  thing,  and  the  distri- 
bution of  ecclesiastical  dignities  quite  another.  How- 
ever small  a  city  may  be,  it  does  not  diminish  the  great- 
ness of  the  prince  who  dwells  there ;  but  it  is  quite  as 
true  that  the  presence  of  the  emperor  does  not  change 
the  order  of  religion ;  and  such  a  city  should  rather 
profit  by  such  an  advantage  to  preserve  the  freedom  of 
religion  by  keeping  peaceably  within  its  proper  limits," 
But  what,  then,  was  the  foundation  of  the  dignity  of 
the  Roman  Church  ?  Gelasius  could  indicate  none  other 
but  the  Council  of  Nicea.  Now  has  not  one  (Ecumenical 
council  the  same  rights  as  another?  If  at  Nicea  the 
Church  had  so  ruled  the  hierarchal  rank  that  Rome 
and   Alexandria  should  be  superiour   to   Antioch  and 

*  Qelas.  Ep.  ad  Episcop.  Dard. 


THE   PAPACY.  199 

Jerusalem,  because  their  sees  were  more  important, 
why  should  not  the  Council  of  Chalccdon  have  had 
the  riglit  to  put  Constantinople  before  Alexandria 
and  even  before  Rome  ?  If,  in  the  spirit  of  the  Council 
of  Nicea,  Rome  and  Alexandria  must  precede  Antioch 
and  Jerusalem,  it  was  evidently  only  because  of  their 
political  importance,  as  was  very  properly  expressed 
by  the  Council  of  Chalcedon.  Why,  then,  should  not 
Constantinople — already  more  important  than  Alexan- 
dria, and  now  the  capital  of  the  empire — why  should 
she  not  be  raised  to  a  superiour  hierarchal  rank  ? 

Gelasius  was  far  from  the  point  when  he  spoke  of  the 
imperial  residences  of  Treves,  Milan,  Ravenna,  and  Sir- 
mium  ;  for  tliese  cities  were  never  reigning  cities  or  capi- 
tals^ like  Rome  and  Constantinople.  He  went  so  far  in 
liis  anger  as  to  refuse  Constantinople  the  bare  title  of 
metropolis,  because  the  ancient  Byzantium  was  not  one. 
It  is  thus  that,  while  accusing  and  condemning  Acacius 
for  his  alleged  opposition  to  the  Council  of  Chalcedon, 
Rome  aiFected  to  trample  on  the  decrees  of  that  very 
same  Council.  Of  what  consequence  is  it  that  Pope 
Leo  protested  against  these  decrees,  under  cover  of  those 
of  Nicea  ?  It  is  none  the  less  true  that  those  of  Chalce- 
don are  of  equal  value,  since  that  assembly  was  equally 
cocumenical. 

It  is  not  our  business,  however,  to  notice  all  the  his- 
torical blunders  and  erroneous  assertions  of  the  letter 
of  Gelasius.  We  have  only  sought  to  show  that  the 
more  Constantinople  increased  in  influence  the  more 
Rome  sought  to  humble  her.  The  motive  of  this  is 
easily  understood.  Rome  was  in  the  hands  of  the  bar- 
barians, losing  each  day  more  her  prestige,  while  Con- 
stantinople, on  the  contrary,  was  at  the  height  of  her 
splendour. 

In  one    of    his   treatises    against  Acacius*   Gelasius 

*  Gelas.  de  Anath. 


200  THE   PAPACY. 

reviews  the  decree  of  the  Council  of  Chalcedon,  which 
granted  the  second  rank  in  the  Church  to  the  Bishop 
of  Constantinople,  Pie  pretends  that  this  decree  is  of 
no  force  because  it  was  rejected  by  the  Roman  see. 
Why,  then,  does  this  see  take  for  the  foundation  of  its 
argument  the  Council  of  Nicea,  as  having  of  itself  a 
superiour  authority,  to  which  Rome  herself  should  sub- 
rait  ?  Was  it  not  because  the  Council  of  Nicea  was 
oecumenical  ?  But  was  not  the  Council  of  Chalcedon 
equally  so,  and  hence  was  not  its  authority  the  same  as 
that  of  the  Nicene  Council  ? 

Evidently  Rome,  by  reason  of  her  antipathy  against 
Constantinople,  put  herself  in  a  false  position.  To  es- 
cape from  it  there  was  but  one  course  open  to  her, 
namely,  to  proclaim  that  she  held  her  authority  from 
God,  and  was  superiour  to  that  of  the  councils.  This 
course  she  took.  She  so  affirmed  timidly  at  first,  open- 
ly when  she  saw  a  favorable  opportunity. 

These  papal  tendencies  first  appeared  in  the  letters 
and  instructions  from  the  Popes  in  matters  connected 
with  those  troubles  which  had  arisen  from  the  pretend- 
ed deposition  of  Acacius.  Nearly  the  entire  East  re- 
garded this  sentence  as  null.  The  Popes  sustained  it, 
and  confounded  that  affair  with  that  of  the  Council  of 
Chalcedon,  in  order  to  giA'e  it  more  importance  ;  never- 
theless, the  prevailing  doctrine  even  in  these  docu- 
ments, is  that  the  council  could  alone  determine  the 
basis  of  reconciliations,  thus  excluding  the  idea  of  a 
central  and  sovereign  authority  at  Rome  or  elsewhere. 
That  thought  chiefly  pervades  the  writings  of  Gelasius 
and  Horniisda,  who  took  the  chief  part  in  the  troubles  of 
the  East.*  Peace  was  restored  in  a  council  held  at  Con- 
stantinople, (a.d.  519,)  and  upon  conditions  discussed 
with  equal  authority  by  either  side.      When,  in  525, 

*  See  their  letter*  in  Labbe's  Collection  of  Councih,  voL  Iv. 


THE   PAPACY.  201 

Pope  John  I.  went  to  Constantinople  by  order  of  Theo- 
doric,  King  of  Italy,  to  plead  for  the  Arians,  he  was  in- 
vited to  celebrate  mass  on  Easter-day.  He  accepted  on 
condition  that  he  might  he  permitted  to  occupy  the  Jirst 
seat.  None  denied  him  this  privilege  ;  still  the  demand 
betrays  in  the  Papacy  a  serious  anxiety  on  the  subject 
of  the  Roman  primacy.  The  Bishop  of  Constantinople 
was  then  rich  and  influential ;  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  on 
the  contrary,  subject  to  the  whims  of  heretical  kings, 
was  in  such  poverty,  that  in  536,  when  Agapitus  was 
made  to  go  to  Constantinople  by  order  of  Theodotus, 
king  of  the  Goths,  he  was  forced  to  sell  some  of  the  con- 
secrated vessels  in  order  to  raise  money  sufiicient  for 
the  journey.  Agapitus  was  received  by  the  Emperor 
Justinian  with  honours.  The  Emperor  had  called  to  the 
see  of  Constantinople  Anthymus,  Bishop  of  Trebizond, 
known  for  his  attachment  to  the  errours  of  Eutyches. 
The  bishops  who  were  at  Constantinople  availed  them- 
selves of  the  presence  of  the  Pope,  to  hold  with  hira  a 
council  against  Anthymus,  who  preferred  to  return  to 
his  see  of  Trebizond,  rather  than  to  make  a  Catholic  con- 
fession of  faith.  Mennas,  chosen  in  his  place  by  the 
clergy  and  people,  and  confirmed  by  the  Emperor,  was 
consecrated  by  the  Pope.  In  a  letter  from  the  Eastern 
bishops  it  is  remarked,  that  they  give  to  Agapitus  the 
titles  of  Father  of  fathers  and  Patriarchy  and  that  in  a 
letter  from  the  monks,  he  was  called  Archbishop  of  the 
ancient  Home  and  oecumenical  Patriarch.*  These  titles 
were  merely  honorary  and  in  the  style  of  the  age,  espe- 
cially in  the  East.  They  gave  the  title  of  Father  of 
fathers  to  every  bishop  whom  they  particularly  wishe<l  to 
honour.  This  proves  nothing  in  favour  of  an  authority 
which  the  Popes  themselves  did  not  yet  claim. 

The  discussions  relating  to  the  '•'•Tliree  Chapters'"'  fur- 
nish an  incontestable  proof  of  our  assertion. 

*  Labbe,  voL  v. 


202  1'JiE  PAPACY. 

Ever  since  the  Council  of  Chalcedon,  the  East  had 
been  filled  with  the  most  animated  discussions  ;  the 
most  subtle  reasoning  was  resorted  to.  Some  openly- 
tampered  with  the  doctrine  of  the  council,  in  order  that 
they  might  attack  it  to  better  advantage  ;  others  denied 
its  orthodoxy,  as  contrary  to  the  Council  of  Ephcsus  and 
to  St.  Cyril.  The  latter  charge  arose  from  this,  that 
the  Fathers  of  Chalcedon  had  given  cause  to  believe 
that  they  approved  of  the  doctrine  of  Theodoras,  Bishop 
of  Mopsuestia,  a  letter  of  Ibas,  and  the  writings  of  Theo- 
deret  against  the  anathemas  of  St.  Cyril.  The  Empe- 
ror Justinian  took  great  part  in  theological  discussions, 
partly  from  inclination,  and  also  because  the  various 
factions,  each  seeking  to  enlist  him  on  their  side,  refer- 
red their  causes  to  him.  He  thought  that  he  had  found 
the  means  of  reuniting  men's  minds  on  the  subject  of 
the  Council  of  Chalcedon,  by  clearing  up  the  misunder- 
standinsrs  which  the  three  writings  above  mentioned 
had  occasioned,  and  condemning  them,  which  he  did, 
in  fact.  These  are  called  the  Tlirce  Chapters.  They 
certainly  had  a  Nestorian  tendency ;  the  authors  were 
no  longer  at  hand  to  explain  them ;  and  all  that  was 
requisite  was  to  condemn  the  Xestoriauism  in  their 
writings. 

Justinian  sent  the  condemnation  of  the  Tlirce  Chap- 
ters to  all  the  bishops,  with  orders  to  sign  it.  Some 
obeyed  this,  others  resisted,  regarding  that  condemna- 
tion only  as  an  attack  on  the  Council  of  Clialcedon. 
Pope  Yigilius  was  ordered  to  Constantinople  by  Jus- 
tinian. After  refusing  to  concur  in  the  condemnation, 
he  consented  without  2}rejudice  to  the  CokhcU  of  Chal- 
cedon. This  reservation  left  unsatisfied  the  enemies  of 
the  council,  while  it  did  not  excuse  the  condemnation 
in  the  eyes  of  the  other  party.  The  bishops  of  Africa, 
Illyria,  and  Dalmatia,  and  many  other  bishops  individ- 
ually, separated  from  the  communion  of  Vigilius.    Those 


THE  PAPACY.  203 

of  Africa  solemnly  excommunicated  him  in  a  council  in 
551* 

Without  passing  on  the  question  at  issue,  these  facts 
show  clearly  that  in  the  sixth  century  the  Bishop  of 
Rome  was  regarded  neither  as  infallible  nor  as  the  centre 
of  Catholic  unity  ;  that  this  centre  was  believed  to  rest 
only  in  the  pure  and  orthodox  faith,  and  in  the  coun- 
cils that  represented  the  whole  Church. 

Vigilius,  alarmed  by  the  condemnations  that  were 
showered  upon  him,  asked  the  Emperor  for  an  occumen- 
nical  council  to  close  the  discussion.  Justinian  con- 
sented, and  convoked  the  bishops.  Vigilius  witlidrew 
his  signature,  and  it  was  agreed  that  all  should  let  the 
matter  rest  until  the  decision  of  the  council.  This 
proves  that  at  Rome,  as  elsewhere,  no  infallible  doctri- 
nal authority  was  recognized,  except  that  of  the  episco- 
pate— the  only  interpreter  of  the  universal  faith. 

Vigilius  refused  to  attend  the  meetings  of  the  coun- 
cil under  pretext  that  the  West  was  not  as  numerously 
represented  as  the  East.  He  was  told  that  the  number 
of  Western  bishops  then  at  Constantinople  was  greater 
than  it  had  been  at  the  other  oscumenical  councils.  This 
objection  raised  by  Vigilius  proves  that  he  did  not  think 
he  could,  by  his  presence  or  by  delegation,  give  an  cbcu- 
menical  character  to  a  council,  as  is  now  assumed  at 
Rome.  Nevertheless,  Vigilius  sent  to  the  council  his 
opinion  upon  the  Three  Chapters,  opposing  their  con- 
demnation. The  council  paid  no  heed  to  his  opposition, 
examined  carefully  the  three  writings,  and  condemned 
the  doctrine  in  them  as  opposed  to  anteriour  councils, 
particularly  to  that  of  Chalcedon,  which  was  solemnly 
recognized  as  oecumenical,  on  the  same  ground  with 
those  of  Nicea,  Constantinople,  and  Ephesus. 

Before  giving  sentence,  the  council  rehearsed  its  pro- 

•  See  Facundi  Op.,  edit,  of  Father  Sirmond ;  and  for  the  documents,  Labbe's  Col- 
lection of  Councils.    See  also  the  Eccl.  UUts.  of  Evag.  and  Theoph. 


204  'rSE   PAPACY. 

ceedings  in  respect  to  Vigilius.  "  When  The  Most  Pious 
Vigilius,"  it  said,*  "  was  in  this  city ;  he  took  part  in 
all  the  discussions  concerning  the  Three  Chapters,  and 
condemned  them  several  times  both  in  writing  and  by 
word  of  mouth.  After  this  he  agreed,  in  writing,  to 
come  to  the  council  and  examine  them  with  us,  in  order 
to  come  to  a  common  decision.  The  Emperor  having, 
in  pursuance  of  our  agreement,  exhorted  us  to  assemble, 
we  were  obliged  to  entreat  Vigilius  to  fulfil  his  prom- 
ise, recalling  to  him  the  example  of  the  Apostles,  who, 
filled  with  the-Holy  Ghost  individually,  and  needing  no 
deliberation,  would  not,  nevertheless,  determine  the 
question  '  whether  the  Gentiles  must  be  circumcised,' 
until  they  had  met  in  council  and  had  strengthened 
their  opinions  by  passages  from  Scripture.  The  Fathers 
who  in  times  past  have  held  the  four  councils,  have  fol- 
lowed the  ancient  examples,  and  have  decided  together 
all  questions  concerning  heretics  ;  for  there  is  7io  other 
way  of  knowing  the  truth  in  questions  of  faith. 

"According  to  Scripture,  each  one  has  need  of  his 
brother's  aid,  and  when  two  or  three  are  gathered  to- 
gether in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ,  he  is  in  the  midst 
of  them.  "We  have  therefore  repeatedly  invited  Vigilius, 
and  the  Emperor  has  sent  officers  to  him  for  the  same 
object ;  but  he  has  only  promised  to  give  his  judgment 
in  private  touching  the  Three  Chapters.  Having  heard 
his  reply,  we  have  all  considered  what  the  Apostle  says, 
*  That  every  one  shall  give  account  of  himself  to  God  ;^ 
and  on  the  other  hand,  we  have  feared  the  judgment 
with  which  those  are  threatened  who  scandalize  the 
brethren." 

Then  the  council  relates  all  that  was  done  in  examin- 
ing the  Three  Chapters  ;  it  condemns  them,  while  it  de- 
clares its  respect  for  the  Council  of  Chalcedon.     By  this 

*  Labbe's  Collection  of  Councils.    Counc.  of  Const,  session  8. 


THE  PAPACY.  205 

wise  decision,  the  fifth  cecnmenical  council  disproved  tho 
accusations  that  passionate  men  had  spread  among  the 
Westerns  touching  the  evil  dispositions  of  most  of  its 
members.  At  the  same  time  it  exposed  the  pretexts 
held  out  by  the  adversaries  of  the  Council  of  Chalcedon, 
for  rejecting  the  decisions  of  that  holy  assembly.  It 
thus  powerfully  contributed  to  quiet  the  dissensions. 

Vigilius  saw  he  had  been  wrong  in  undertaking  the 
defence  of  a  bad  doctrine,  under  pretence  of  his  respect 
for  the  Council  of  Chalcedon.  Six  months  after  the 
closing  of  the  council,  he  wrote  to  Eutychius,  the  Patri- 
arch of  Constantinople,  acknowledging  that  he  had  sin- 
ned against  charity  in  separating  himself  from  his 
brethren.  He  adds  that  no  one  should  be  ashamed  to 
retract,  when  he  discovers  the  truth.  "Having,"  he 
says,  "  examined  the  matter  of  the  Three  Chapters,  I 
find  them  condemnable."  Then  he  declares  against 
those  who  sustain  them,  and  condemns  his  own  writ- 
ings in  their  defence.  He  publishes  finally  a  long  me- 
morial to  prove  that  the  Three  Chapters  contained  un- 
sound doctrine.*  He  returned  to  communion  with  those 
whom  he  had  previously  anathematized,  and  peace  was 
restored. 

The  fifth  (Ecumenical  council  was  neither  convoked 
nor  presided  over  by  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  although  he 
was  present  in  the  city  where  the  council  was  held. 
The  meetings  were  held  not  only  without  him,  but 
against  him.  Nevertheless,  the  decision  of  this  council 
was  considered  canonical,  and  the  Pope  himself,  after 
some  objections,  arising  out  of  his  ignorance  of  certain 
facts,  submitted  to  it.  The  West  concurred  with  the 
council  thus  assembled  without  the  Pope  and  against 
the  Pope,  and  thus  the  assembly  acquired  its  oecumen- 
ical character. 

All  the  circumstances  of  this  great  fact  of  ecclesias- 

♦  Labbe's  Collection,  voL  v. 


206  ^-fl"^  PAPACY. 

tical  history  prove,  beyond  dispute,  that  nothing  was 
known  in  the  sixth  century,  even  at  Rome,  of  these  pre- 
tended prerogatives  that  are  now  ascribed  to  the  Pa- 
pacy. 

The  discussions  that  took  place  at  the  close  of  that 
century,  between  John  the  Faster,  successor  of  Euty- 
chius,  at  Constantinople,  and  Pope  Gregory  the  Great, 
clearly  establish  the  same  truth. 

We  have  already  mentioned  that  the  title  of  oecumen- 
ical had  been  given  to  the  Bishop  of  Rome  as  a  mere 
honour  in  the  Council  of  Chalcedon  ;  that  Pope  Felix 
had  affected  to  give  to  his  see  the  title  of  catholic  in 
the  same  sense ;  and  that  some  Oriental  monks  had 
called  Pope  Agapitus  oecumenical  Patriarch.  These 
precedents  were  copied  at  Constantinople.  The  em- 
perors were  bent  upon  raising  the  Patriarch  of  that 
capital,  which  they  called  the  new  Home,  to  the 
same  degree  of  honour  as  belonged  to  the  one  of  a;i- 
cietit  Borne,  still  keeping  him  in  the  second  rank,  but 
only  in  respect  of  seniority.  The  Emperor  Maurice 
thus  gave  to  John  the  Faster  the  title  of  oecumenical 
Patriarch. 

Pope  Pelagius  11.  and  his  successor  Gregory  the  Great 
protested  against  this  title.  Gregory  then  wrote  those 
famous  letters  which  so  absolutely  condemn  the  modern 
Papacy.     We  will  give  some  extracts  from  them. 

At  the  beginning  of  his  episcopate,  Gregory  addressed 
a  letter  of  communion  to  the  Patriarchs  John  of  Con- 
stantinople, Eulogius  of  Alexandria,  Gregory  of  Anti- 
och,  John  of  Jerusalem,  and  to  Anastasius,  formerly  Pa- 
triarch of  Antioch,  his  friend.  If  he  had  considered 
himself  the  chief  and  sovereign  of  the  Church  ;  if  he  had 
believed  he  was  so  by  divine  right.,  he  Avould  certainly 
have  addressed  the  Patriarchs  as  subordinates  ;  we 
should  find  in  that  encyclical  letter  some  traces  of  his 
superiority.     The  fact  is  quite  the  reverse  of  this.    It 


THE  PAPACY.  207 

speaks  at  great  length  of  the  duties  of  the  episcopate, 
and  not  even  dreams  of  mentioning  the  rights  which 
such  a  dignity  would  have  conferred  on  him. 

He  particularly  insists  upon  the  duty  of  a  bishop  not 
to  permit  himself  to  be  engrossed  by  the  cares  of  exter- 
nal things,  and  concludes  his  encyclical  letter  with  his 
confession  of  faith,  in  order  to  prove  himself  in  commun- 
ion with  the  other  Patriarchs,  and  through  them  with 
all  the  Church.* 

Such  silence  on  St.  Gregory's  part  concerning  the 
pretended  rights  of  the  Papacy  is  of  itself  significant 
enough,  and  Romish  theologians  would  find  it  difticult 
of  explanation.  What,  then,  shall  they  oppose  to  the 
letters  from  which  we  are  about  to  give  a  few  extracts, 
and  in  which  St.  Gregory  most  unreservedly  condemns 
the  very  idea  which  is  the  foundation  of  their  Papacy  as 
they  understand  it — that  is,  the  universal  character  of 
its  authority  ? 
Gregory  to  John,  Bishop  of  Cofistantinople : 

"  You  remember,  my  brother,  the  peace  and  concord 
which  the  Church  enjoyed  when  you  were  raised  to  the 
sacerdotal  dignity.  I  do  not,  therefore,  understand  how 
you  have  dared  to  follow  the  inspiration  of  pride,  and 
have  attempted  to  assume  a  title  which  may  give  offence 
to  all  the  brethren.  I  am  the  more  astonished  at  it  that 
I  remember  your  having  taken  flight  to  avoid  the  epis- 
copate ;  and  yet  you  would  exercise  it  to-day,  as  if  you 
had  run  toward  it,  impelled  by  ambitious  desires.  You 
who  used  to  say  so  loud  that  you  were  unworthy  of  the 
episcopate,  you  are  no  sooner  raised  to  it  than,  despis- 
ing your  brethren,  you  aspire  to  have  alone  the  title  of 
bishop.  My  predecessor,  Pelagius,  of  saintly  memory, 
wrote  very  seriously  to  your  Holiness  iipon  this  subject. 
He  rejected,  in  consequence  of  the  proud  and  magnifi- 
cent title  that  you  assumed  in  them,  the   acts  of  the 

*  St.  Greg.  Pap.  Epist.  25,  lib.  1. 


208  THE   PAPACY. 

synod  which  you  assembled  in  the  cause  of  Gregory,  our 
brother  and  fellow- bishop ;  and  to  the  archdeacon, 
whom,  according  to  usage,  he  had  sent  to  the  Emperor's 
court,  he  forbade  communion  with  you.  After  the 
death  of  Pelagius,  having  been  raised,  notwithstanding 
my  lanworthiness,  to  the  government  of  the  Church,* 
it  has  been  my  care  to  urge  you,  my  brother,  not  by 
writing,  but  by  word  of  mouth,  first  by  my  envoy,  f  and 
afterward  through  our  common  son.  Deacon  Sabinian, 
to  give  up  such  assumption.  I  have  forbidden  him  also 
to  communicate  with  you  if  you  should  refuse  to  yield 
to  my  request,  in  order  that'  your  Holiness  may  be  in- 
spired with  shame  for  your  ambition,  before  resorting 
to  canonical  proceedings,  in  case  shame  should  not  cure 
you  of  pride  so  profane  and  so  reprehensible.  As  before 
resorting  to  amputation,  the  wound  should  be  tenderly 
probed,  I  pray  you — -I  entreat  you — I  ask  with  the  great- 
est possible  gentleness,  that  you,  my  brother,  will  resist 
all  the  flatterers  who  give  you  an  erroneous  title,  and 
that  you  will  not  consent  to  ascribe  to  yourself  a  title 
as  senseless  as  vainglorious.  Verily  I  have  tears  for 
this ;  and  from  the  bottom  of  my  heart  I  ascribe  it  to 
my  own  sins  that  my  brother  has  not  been  willing  to 
return  to  lowliness — he  who  was  raised  to  the  episcopal 
dignity  only  to  teach  other  souls  to  be  lowly  ;  that  he 
who  teaches  others  the  truth  would  neither  teach  it  to 
himself,  nor  consent,  for  all  my  prayers,  that  I  should 
teach  it  him. 

"I  pray  you,  therefore,  reflect  that  by  your  bold  pre- 
sumption the  peace  of  the  whole  Church  is  troubled,  and 
that  you  are  at  enmity  with  that  grace  which  was  given 
to  all  in  common.     The  more  you  grow  in  that  grace, 


♦  According  to  St.  Gregory,  every  bishop  has  a  part  in  the  government  of  the 
Church,  the  authority  residing  in  the  episcopate. 

t  The  Bishop  of  Rome  had  kept  representatives  at  the  court  of  Constantinople 
ever  since  that  city  had  become  the  imperial  residence. 


7 HE   PAPACY.  209 

the  more  humWe  you  will  be  in  your  own  eyes ;  you 
will  be  the  greater  in  proportion  us  you  are  further  re- 
moved from  usurping  this  extravagant  and  vainglorious 
title.  You  will  be  the  richer  as  you  seek  less  to  despoil 
your  brethren  to  your  profit.  Therefore,  dearly  beloved 
brother,  love  humility  with  all  your  heart.  It  is  that 
which  insures  peace  among  the  brethren,  and  which 
preserves  unity  in  the  Holy  Catholic  Church. 

"  When  the  Apostle  Paul  heard  certain  of  the  faith- 
ful say,  '  I  am  of  Paul,  I  of  A2)ollos,  and  I  of  Cephas,^ 
he  could  not  see  them,  without  horror,  thus  rending  the 
body  of  the  Lord,  to  attach  liis  members  to  various 
heads  ;  and  he  exclaimed,  '  Was  Paul  crucified  for 
you  ? — or  were  ye  baptized  in  the  name  of  Paul  ?'  If 
he  could  not  bear  that  the  members  of  the  body  of  the 
Lord  should  be  attached  piecemeal  to  other  heads  than 
that  of  Christ,  though  those  heads  were  Apostles,  what 
will  you  say  to  Christ,  who  is  the  head  of  the  universal 
Church — what  will  you  say  to  him  at  the  last  judg- 
ment— you  who,  by  your  title  oi universal,  would  bring 
all  his  members  into  subjection  to  yourself?  Whom, 
I  pray  you  tell  me,  whom  do  you  imitate  by  this  perverse 
title  if  not  him  who,  despising  the  legions  of  angels,  his 
companions,  endeavoured  to  mount  to  the  highest,  that 
he  might  be  subject  to  none  and  be  alone  above  all 
others;  who  said,  '■  I  will  ascend  into  heaven;  I  will 
exalt  my  throne  above  the  stars  of  God ;  I  will  sit  also 
upon  the  mount  of  the  congregation,  in  the  sides  of  the 
North;  I  will  ascend  above  the  heights  of  the  clouds; 
Iwill  be  like  the  Most  High'  ?  What  are  your  brethren, 
the  bishops  of  the  universal  Church,  but  the  stars 
of  God  ?  Their  lives  and  teaching  shine,  in  truth, 
through  the  sins  and  errours  of  men,  as  do  the  stars 
through  the  darkness  of  the  night.  When,  by  your 
ambitious  title,  you  would  exalt  yourself  above  them, 
and  debase  their  title  in  comparison  with   your  own, 


210  THE   PAPACY. 

what  do  you  say,  if  not  these  very  words,  I  will 
ascend  into  heaven  /  I  will  exalt  my  throne  above 
the  stars  of  God?  Are  not  all  the  bishops  the  clouds 
that  pour  forth  the  rain  of  instruction,  and  who  are 
furrowed  by  the  lightnings  of  their  own  good  works  ? 
In  despising  them,  my  brother,  and  endeavouring 
to  put  them  under  your  feet,  what  else  do  you  say 
than  that  word  of  the  ancient  enemy,  I  will  ascend 
above  the  heights  of  the  clouds?  For  my  part,  when, 
through  my  tears,  I  see  all  this,  I  fear  the  secret  judg- 
ments of  God ;  my  tears  flow  more  abundantly  ;  my 
heart  overflows  with  lamentations,  to  think  that  my 
Lord  John — a  man  so  holy,  of  such  great  abstinence  and 
humility,  but  now  seduced  by  the  flattery  of  his  famil- 
iars— should  have  been  raised  to  such  a  degree  of  pride 
that,  through  the  lust  of  a  wrongful  title,  he  should  en- 
deavour to  resemble  him  who,  vaingloriously  wishing 
to  be  like  God,  lost,  because  he  was  ambitious  of  a  false 
glory,  the  grace  of  the  divine  resemblance  that  had  been 
granted  to  him,  and  the  true  beatitude.  Peter,  the  first 
of  the  Apostles,  and  a  member  of  the  holy  and  universal 
Church  ;  Paul,  Andrew,  John — were  they  not  the  chiefs 
of  certain  nations  ?  And  yet  all  are  members  under  one 
only  head.  In  a  word,  the  saints  before  the  law^  the 
saints  under  the  law,  the  saints  under  grace — do  they 
not  all  constitute  the  body  of  the  Lord  ?  Are  they  not 
members  of  the  Church  ?  Yet  is  there  none  among 
them  who  desired  to  be  called  universal.  Let  your 
Holiness  consider,  therefore,  how  much  you  are  puffed 
up  when  you  claim  a  title  that  none  of  them  had  the 
presumption  to  assume. 

"  You  know  it,  my  brother  ;  hath  not  the  venerable 
Council  of  Chalcedon  conferred  the  honorary  title  of 
universal  upon  the  bishops  of  this  Apostolic.See,  whereof 
I  am,  by  (xOd's  will,  the  servant  ?  And  yet  none  of  us 
hath  permitted  this  title  to  be  given  to  him ;  none  hath 


THE  PAPACY.  211 

assumed  this  bold  title,  lest  by  assuming  a  special  dis- 
tinction in  the  dignity  of  the  episcopate,  we  should 
Beem  to  refuse  it  to  all  the  brethren. 

.  .  .  "The  Lord,  wishing  to  recall  to  a  proper  hu- 
mility the  yet  feeble  hearts  of  his  disciples,  said  to  them, 
*  If  any  man  desire  to  be  first,  the  same  shall  be  last  of 
all ;'  whereby  we  are  clearly  taught  that  he  who  is  truly 
high  is  he  who  is  most  humble  in  mind.  Let  us, 
therefore,  beware  of  being  of  the  number  of  those  '  who 
love  the  chief  seats  in  the  synagogues,  and  greetings  in 
the  markets,  and  to  be  called  of  men,  Rabbi,  Rabbi.' 
In  fact,  the  Lord  said  to  his  disciples,  '  Be  ye  not  called 
Habbiy  for  one  is  your  Master^  .  .  .  and  all  ye  are 
brethren.  Neither  be  ye  called  Fathers^  for  ye  have  but 
one  Father.'' 

"  What  then  could  you  answer,  beloved  brother,  in 
the  terrible  judgment  to  come,  who  desire  not  only  to 
be  called  Father,  but  universal  Father  of  the  world  ? 
Beware  then  of  evil  suggestions  ;  fly  from  the  counsel  of 
offence.  '  It  is  impossible^!  indeed,  '  but  that  offences 
will  come  ;  but^  for  all  that,  '  WO  unto  him  through 
whom  they  come  r  In  consequence  of  your  wicked  and 
vainglorious  title,  the  Church  is  divided  and  the  hearts 
of  the  brethren  are  offended. 

..."  I  have  sought  again  and  again,  by  my  mes- 
sengers and  by  humble  words,  to  correct  the  sin  which 
has  been  committed  against  the  whole  Church.  Now 
I  myself  write.  I  have  omitted  notliing  that  humility 
made  it  my  duty  to  do.  If  I  reap  from  my  rebuke  noth- 
ing better  than  contempt,  there  will  nothing  be  left  for 
me  but  to  appeal  to  the  Church.'''' 

By  this  first  letter  of  St.  Gregory  we  see,  first,  that 
ecclesiastical  authority  resides  in  the  episcopate,  and  not 
in  any  one  bishop,  however  high  in  the  ecclesiastical 
hierarchy ;  secondly,  that  it  was  not  his  private  cause 
that  Gregory  defended  against  John  of  Constantinople, 


212  THE   PAPACY. 

but  that  of  the  whole  Church;  thirdly,  that  he  had  not 
himself  the  right  to  judge  the  cause,  and  was  compelled 
to  refer  it  to  the  Church ;  fourthly,  that  the  title  of  uni- 
versal bishop  is  contrary  to  God's  word,  and  vainglorious 
and  wicked  ;  fifthly,  that  no  bishop,  however  high  in  the 
ecclesiastical  hierarchy,  can  assume  universal  authority, 
without  invading  the  rights  of  the  entire  episcopate ; 
and  lastly,  that  no  bishop  in  the  Church  can  claim  to  bo 
Father  of  all  Christians  without  assuming  a  title  which 
is  contrary  to  the  Gospel,  vainglorious,  and  wicked. 

John  of  Constantinople,  having  received  his  title  of 
universal  from  the  Emperor,  Gregory  wrote  the  follow- 
ing letter  to  that  prince  :* 

"  Our  very  pious  lord  does  wisely  to  endeavour  to 
accomplish  the  peace  of  the  Church  that  he  may  re- 
store peace  to  his  empire,  and  to  condescend  to  invite 
the  priesthood  to  concord  and  unity.  I  myself  desire  it 
ardently  ;  and  as  much  as  in  me  lies,  I  obey  his  worship- 
ful commands.  But  since  not  my  cause  alone,  but  the 
cause  of  God  is  concerned  ;  since  it  is  not  I  alone  who  am 
disturbed,  but  the  whole  Church  that  is  agitated  ;  since 
the  canons,  the  venerable  councils,  and  the  command- 
ments of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  himself  are  attacked,  by 
the  invention  of  a  certain  pompous  and  vainglorious 
word ;  let  our  most  pious  lord  cut  out  this  evil ;  and  if 
the  patient  would  resist  him,  let  him  bind  him  with  the 
bonds  of  his  imperial  authority.  In  binding  such  things 
you  will  give  liberty  to  the  commonwealth,  and  by  ex- 
cisions of  this  sort  you  will  diminish  the  malady  of  your 
empire. 

"  All  those  who  have  read  the  Gospel  know  that  tlio 
care  of  the  whole  Church  was  confided  by  our  Lord 
himself  to  St.  Peter,  first  of  all  the  Apostles.  Indeed, 
he  said  to  him,  '  Peter.,  lovesi  thou  me  ?  Feed  my  sheep.^ 
Again  it  was  said  to  him,  '  Satan  has  desired  to  sift 

*  Letters  of  St.  Gregory,  Book  V.  Letter  20,  Benedictine  edition. 


THE   PAPACY.  ^\Z 

thee  as  wheat :  but  I  have  prayed  for  thee,  that  thy  faith 
fail  not :  and  when  thou  art  converted,  strengthen  thy 
brethren.''  It  was  also  said  to  him,  '  Thou  art  Peter, 
and  upon  this  rock  I  will  build  my  Church:  and  the 
gates  of  hell  shall  not  prevail  against  it :  and  I  will 
give  thee  the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven :  and  what- 
soever thou  shall  bind  on  earth  shall  be  bound  in  hea- 
ven;  and  whatsoever  thou  shall  loose  on  earth  shall  be 
loosed  in  heaven.''  He  thus  received  the  keys  of  the 
celestial  kingdom ;  the  power  to  bind  and  loose  was  given 
to  him  ;  the  care  of  all  the  Church  and  the  primacy  were 
committed  to  him ;  and  yet  he  did  not  call  himself  uni- 
versal Apostle.  But  that  most  holy  man,  John,  my 
brother  in  the  priesthood,  would  fain  assume  the  title  of 
universal  bishop.  I  can  but  exclaim,  0  temporal  0 
mores  /" 

We  cannot  pass  over  these  words  of  St.  Gregory 
without  pointing  out  their  great  importance.  This 
learned  doctor  interprets,  as  we  have  seen,  the  texts  of 
the  Gospel,  which  refer  to  St.  Peter,  in  the  sense  most 
favourable  to  that  Apostle.  He  exalts  Peter  as  having 
had  the  primacy  in  the  Apostolic  college ;  as  having 
been  intrusted  by  the  Lord  himself  with  the  care  of  the 
whole  Church.  What  does  he  infer  from  all  this  ?  Ever 
since  the  Popes  have  abused  the  texts  that  he  quotes,  in 
order  to  attribute  to  themselves  an  absolute  and  univer- 
sal authority  in  the  Church,  we  know  how  they  reason. 
They  give  to  the  language  of  the  Gospel,  in  the  first 
place,  the  very  broadest  and  most  absolute  sense,  and 
then  apply  it  to  themselves  as  the  successors  of  St. 
Peter.  St.  Gregory  acts  quite  otherwise :  he  places 
Peter's  prerogatives  side  by  side  with  his  humility, 
which  kept  him  from  claiming  tmiversal  authority ;  he 
is  so  far  from  holding  himself  out  as  Peter's  heir,  that 
he  only  quotes  the  example  of  that  Apostle  to  confound 
John  of  Constantinople,  and  all  those  who  would  claim 


214  THE   PAFAVV. 

universal  authority  in  the  Church.  Thus  he  attacks,  by 
St.  Peter's  example,  the  same  authority  that  the  popes 
have  since  claimed  in  the  name  of  St.  Peter  and  as  his 
successors. 

St.  Gregory  continues : 

"  Is  it  my  cause,  most  pious  lord,  that  I  now  defend  ? 
Is  it  a  private  injury  that  I  wish  to  avenge  ?  No ;  this 
is  the  cause  of  Almighty  God,  the  cause  of  the  univer- 
sal Church. 

"  Who  is  he  who,  against  the  precepts  of  the  Gospel 
and  the  decrees  of  the  canons,  has  the  presumption  to 
usurp  a  new  title  ?  "Would  to  Heaven  there  were  but 
one  who,  without  wishing  to  lessen  the  others,  desired 
to  be  himself  universal  /     •     •     •     • 

"  The  Church  of  Constantinople  has  produced  bishops 
who  have  fallen  in  the  abyss  of  heresy,  and  who  have 
even  become  heresiarchs.  Thence  issued  Nestorius, 
who,  thinking  there  must  be  two  persons  in  Jesus 
Christ,  mediator  between  God  and  man,  because  he  did 
not  believe  that  God  could  become  man,  descended  thus 
to  the  very  perfidy  of  the  Jews.  Thence  came  Macedo- 
nius,  also,  who  denied  that  the  Holy  Spirit  was  God 
consubstantial  with  the  Father  and  the  Son.  But  if  any 
one  usurp  in  the  Church  a  title  which  embraces  all  the 
faithful,  the  imiversal  Chxxxch. — 0  blasphemy ! — will  then 
fall  with  him,  since  he  makes  himself  to  be  called  the 
universal.  May  all  Christians  reject  this  blasphe- 
mous title — this  title  which  takes  the  sacerdotal  honour 
from  every  priest  the  moment  it  is  insanely  usurped  by 
one  ! 

"  It  is  certain  that  this  title  was  offered  to  the  Roman 
Pontiff  by  the  venerable  Council  of  Chalcedon,  to  honour 
the  blessed  Peter,  prince  of  the  Apostles.  But  none  of 
us  has  consented  to  use  this  particular  title,  lest,  by  con- 
ferring a  special  matter  upon  one  alone,  all  priests 
should  be  deprived  of  the  honour  which  is  their  due. 


THE   PAPACY.  215 

How,  then,  while  wo  are  not  ambitious  of  the  glory  of 
a  title  that  has  been  offered  to  us,  does  another,  to  whom 
no  one  has  offered  it,  have  the  presumption  to  take  it  ?" 

This  passage  of  Gregory  is  very  remarkable.  He 
first  asserts  that  it  was  a  council  that  offered  the  Bish- 
ops of  Rome  the  honour  of  being  called  universal. 
Would  this  council  have  done  this  with  a  view  to  honour 
these  bishops  if  it  had  believed  that  they  already  had 
universal  authority  by  divine  right?  Moreover,  St. 
Gregory  asserts  that  the  council  wished  to  honour  the 
bishops  as  an  honour  to  St.  Peter.  He,  therefore,  did  not 
believe  that  universal  authority  came  to  them  hj  succes- 
sion from  that  Apostle.  The  Church  of  Rome  has  cause 
to  glory  in  St.  Peter,  for  he  made  her  illustrious  by  his 
martyrdom.  It  was,  therefore,  in  remembrance  of  this 
martyrdom,  and  to  honour  this  first  of  the  Apostles,  that 
the  General  Council  of  Chalcedon  offered  the  Bishops  of 
Rome  this  honorary  title.  How  shall  we  reconcile  these 
statements  of  St.  Gregory  with  the  pretensions  of  the 
modern  Bishops  of  Rome,  who  believe  that  of  divine 
right  they  are  invested  not  only  with  the  title  o?  tmiver- 
sal  Bishop  and  common  Father  of  the  Faithful,  but  also 
with  an  universal  sovereignty  f 

These  letters  of  St.  Gregory  are  unquestionable  re- 
cords attesting  that  the  universal  Church  was  startled 
from  the  moment  there  appeared  in  her  bosom  the  first 
glimmerings  of  an  universal  power  residing  in  a  single 
bishop.  The  whole  Church  understood  that  such  author- 
ity could  not  be  established  without  depriving  the  en- 
tire episcopate  of  its  rights  ;  in  fact,  according  to  divine 
institution,  the  government  of  the  Church  is  synodical. 
Authority  can,  therefore,  only  reside  in  the  entire  body 
of  legitimate  pastors,  and  not  in  any  individual  pastor. 

We  cannot  declare  in  favour  of  the  universal  author- 
ity of  one  without  destroying  the  divine  principle  of  the 
organization  of  the  Church. 


2ia 


THE  PAPACY. 


This  truth  stands  out  prominently  from  the  writings 
of  Pope  Gregory  the  Great. 

He  writes  upon  the  same  subject  to  Eulogius,  Bishop 
of  Alexandria,  and  Anastasius,  Bishop  of  Antioch.  He 
says  to  them  :  "  Eight  years  ago,  in  the  life  of  our  pre- 
decessor, Pelagius,  of  saintly  memory,  our  brother  and 
fellow-bishop,  John,  taking  occasion  from  some  other 
matter,  assembled  a  synod  in  the  city  of  Constantino- 
ple, and  sought  to  assume  the  title  of  universal,  which 
our  predecessor  no  sooner  learned  than  he  sent  letters 
by  which,  in  virtue  of  the  authority  of  the  Apostle  St. 
Peter,  he  nullified  the  acts  of  the  synod." 

Romish  theologians  have  strangely  misused  this  pas- 
sage in  favour  of  their  system.  Had  they  compared  it 
with  the  other  texts  from  St.  Gregory  on  the  same  sub- 
ject, and  with  the  whole  body  of  his  doctrine,  they 
might  have  convinced  themselves  of  two  things  :  First, 
that  in  this  passage  Gregory  only  refers  to  the  primacy 
granted  by  the  councils  to  the  Bishop  of  Rome  because 
of  the  dignity  of  his  see,  made  glorious  by  the  martyr- 
dom of  St.  Veie\\  first  of  the  Apostles.  Secondly,  that 
the  only  question  before  the  synod  of  Constantinople 
was  one  of  mere  discipline,  in  which  the  accused  priest 
had  appealed  to  Rome.  Pelagius,  then  Bishop  of  Rome, 
was  therefore  judge  in  the  last  resort  in  this  matter,  in 
virtue  of  the  primacy  granted  to  his  see.  This  primacy 
had  been  granted  to  his  see  for  the  sake  of  St.  Peter. 
The  Council  of  Chalcedon,  in  order  to  honour  St.  Peter^ 
had  also  offered  the  title  of  universal  to  the  Bishops  or 
Rome,  as  we  learn  from  St.  Gregory. 

But  between  this  and  a  sovereignty  of  divine  right 
coming  to  the  popes  by  succession  from  St.  Peter.,  there  is 
a  great  gulf;  yet  Romanists  have  found  it  all  in  the 
text  from  St.  Gregory  above  quoted  ;  carefully  avoiding 
to  quote,  however,  the  other  texts  that  limit  its  meaning, 
and  teach  us  the  true  doctrine  of  this  Pope.    They  often 


THE  PAPACY.  217 

act  thus  in  respect  of  their  quotations  from  the  councils 
and  the  Fathers  of  the  Church,  as  we  have  already  re- 
peatedly shown, 

St.  Gregory  continues : 

"As  your  Holiness,  whom  1  particularly  venerate, 
well  knows,  this  title  of  universal  was  offered  by  the 
holy  Council  of  Chalcedon  to  the  Bishop  of  the  Apos- 
tolic see,  which,  by  God's  grace,  I  serve.  But  none  of 
my  predecessors  would  use  this  impious  word^  because, 
in  reality,  if  a  Patriarch  be  called  universal,  this  takes 
from  all  the  others  the  title  of  Patriarch.  Far,  very  far, 
from  every  Christian  soul  be  the  wish  to  usurp  any 
thing  that  might  diminish,  however  little,  the  honour  of 
his  brethren!  When  we  deny  ourselves  an  honour  that 
has  been  offered  to  us,  consider  how  humiliating  it  is  to 
see  it  violently  usurped  by  another." 

Roman  theologians  have  carefully  avoided  calling  at- 
tention to  this  passage,  where  St,  Gregory  considers 
himself  a  Patriarch  equal  to  the  other  Patriarchs  ;  where 
he  clearly  says,  if  one  of  the  Patriarchs  may  claim  to 
be  universal,  the  others  are,  ipso  facto,  no  more  Patri- 
archs. This  doctrine  perfectly  agrees  with  that  of  the 
xyrimacy  granted  to  the  Patriarch  of  Rome,  for  St. 
Peter's  sake,  and  in  remembrance  of  the  martyrdom 
suffered  by  this^rs^  of  the  Apostles  at  Rome  ;  but  does 
it  agree  with  a  universal  sovereignty,  coming  by  divine 
right  to  the  Bishops  of  Rome,  through  Peter,  their 
assumed  predecessor  ?     Assuredly  not. 

St.  Gregory  continues  to  unfold  a  teaching  contrary 
to  the  modern  Papal  system  : 

"Therefore,"  he  says,  "  let  your  Holiness  not  give  to 
any  one  in  your  letters  the  title  of  universal,  lest  you  de- 
prive yourself  of  your  own  due,  by  offering  to  another 
an  honour  that  you  do  not  owe  to  him.  For  my  part, 
though  separated  from  you  by  great  distance  of  land 
and  sea,  I  am,  nevertheless,  closely  bound  to  you  in 


218  THJH   FAPAVy. 

heart.  I  am  confident  that  such  are  also  the  sentiments 
of  your  Holiness  toward  me ;  if  you  love  me  as  I  love 
you,  no  distance  can  separate  us.  Thanks  bfe,  then,  to 
that  grain  of  mustard-seed,  which  was,  indeed,  in  ap- 
pearance, small  and  contemptible,  but  which,  spreading 
afar  its  branches,  sprung  all  from  one  root,  has  formed 
a  shelter  for  all  the  birds  of  the  air !  Thanks  be,  also, 
to  that  leaven  which,  hidden  in  three  measures  of  meal, 
has  joined  in  one  unity  the  whole  of  mankind.  Thanks, 
again,  for  that  little  stone,  broken  without  efibrt  from 
the  mountain,  that  has  covered  the  whole  surface  of  the 
earth,  which  has  so  extended  itself  as  to  make  out  of 
the  human  race,  now  united,  the  body  of  the  universal 
Church,  which  has  even  made  distinctions  of  the  parts 
serve  to  rivet  the  bonds  of  unity. 

"  Hence  it  follows,  that  we  are  not  far  from  you, 
since  we  are  07ie  in  Him  who  is  everywhere.  Let  us 
give  Him  thanks  for  having  so  destroyed  all  enmities 
that,  in  his  humanity,  there  is  in  the  world  but  one  fold 
and  one  flock,  under  one  shepherd,  which  is  Christ  him- 
self. Let  us  always  remember  these  warnings  of  the 
Preacher  of  truth  :  '  Endeavouring  to  keep  the  unity  oj 
the  Spirit  in  the  bond  of  peace^  (Ephes.  4:3.)  '  Fol- 
lovo  peace  with  all  men.,  and  holiness,  loithout  which  no 
man  shall  see  the  Lord.''  (Heb.  12  :  14.)  The  same 
said  to  HIS  DISCIPLES,  '  If  it  be  possible,  as  much  as 
lieth  in  you,  live  peaceably  tcith  all  men.''  (Romans  12  : 
18.)  He  knew  that  the  good  could  have  no  peace  with 
the  wicked ;  therefore,  he  says  at  once,  as  you  know, 
'  If  it  be  possible:  " 

Let  us  pause  a  moment  over  this  part  of  Gregory's 
letter.  Is  it  not  remarkable  that,  in  speaking  of  the 
Church  as  one  flock  under  the  guidance  of  a  single  pas- 
tor, which  is  Jesus  Christ,  he  expressly  says  that  Jesus 
Christ  is  the  only  visible  pastor  of  the  Church,  or,  which 
is  the  same  thing,  that  he  is  the  pastor  in  his  humanity. 


TEE  PAPACY,  219 

in  his  fleshy  according  to  the  whole  strength  of  the  ex- 
pression, "  in  came  sua  ?" 

Does  not  this  exclude  all  idea  of  a  universal  pastor, 
taking  the  place  of  and  representing  Christ  ?  There- 
fore, does  it  not,  in  one  word,  destroy  all  the  assump- 
tions of  the  modern  Papacy,  and  reduce  the  true  Papacy 
to  aprimact/  established  by  the  Church? 

Further,  St.  Gregory,  in  quoting  the  epistle  to  the 
Romans,  calls  these  Romans  "  disciples''''  of  St.  Paid.  St. 
Paul  only  wrote  his  epistle  to  tlie  Christians  at  Rome, 
A.D.  58.  There  were  then  at  Rome  very  few  Christians 
— not  established  as  a  Church,properly  so  called,  and  as- 
sembling at-  the  house  of  Aqnila,  one  of  their  number. 
They  had  come  to  Rome  from  various  countries  that  h:i'l 
been  evangelized  by  St.  Paul,  and  are  thirs  called  by  St. 
Gregory  his  disciples.  They  wrote  to  him,  beseeching 
him  to  visit  and  instruct  them.  Paul  replied  to  them  by 
his  letter,  in  which  he  promises  to  evangelize  Rome. 
He  went  there  two  years  later.  There  he  found  some 
Jews,  who  only  knew  the  Christians  by  name,  and  who, 
therefore,  cannot  have  already  been  converted  by  St. 
Peter,  their  special  Apostle.  Paul  formed  a  church  at 
Rome,  and  gave  it  for  a  bishop  one  Linus,  his  disci- 
ple, whom  Tertullian,  St.  Irenaeus,  and  Eusebius  men- 
tion, as  we  have  already  seen,  as  the  first  Bishop  of 
Rome. 

Where,  now,  is  the  alleged  episcopate  of  St.  Peter  at 
Rome,  upon  which  the  Ultramontanes  base  all  their 
systems  ?  St.  Peter  evidently  came  to  Rome  but  a 
short  time  before  he  suffered  martyi'dom  there.  It  was 
because  of  the  martyrdom  of  the  first  of  the  Apostles, 
and  not  because  of  his  ej)iscopate  at  Rome,  that  the 
councils,  like  that  of  Chalcedon  and  that  of  Sardica,  for 
example,  granted  certain  special  privileges  to  the  Bish- 
ops of  Rome.  Nor  does  St.  Gregory,  in  his  letters  to 
thePatriarchs,  endeavour  to  ascribe  to  himself,  by  right 


220  ^^^   PAPACY. 

of  Apostolic  succession  from  St.  Peter,  an  authority 
which  was  not  his  ;  he  even  very  justly  traces  his  Church 
back  to  St.  Paul,  and  not  to  St.  Peter.  Thus,  when,  in 
another  place,  he  calls  the  authority  of  his  predecessor 
the  authority  of  St.  Peter^  he  means  by  that  only  the 
rights  which  the  Bishops  of  Rome  had  received  from 
the  councils  for  the  honour  of  St.  Peter,  who  had  made 
that  Church  illustrious  by  his  glorious  death  ! 

Could  any  one  find  in  St.  Gregory's  letter  to  the  Pa- 
triarchs the  language  of  a  superiour  toward  his  subor- 
dinates ?  St.  Gregory,  as  frst  bishop  of  the  Church,  as 
frst  of  the  Patriarchs,  takes  the  lead,  calls  the  attention 
of  the  other  Patriarchs,  his  brethren,  to  the  encroach- 
ments of  one  of  their  number.  He  entreats  them  to  join 
him  in  resisting  what  he  regards  as  a  misfortune  for  the 
whole  episcopate  ;  nay,  for  the  universal  Church.  He 
does  not  make  the  slightest  allusion  to  any  superiour  au- 
thority in  himself;  he  appeals  only  to  the  divine  pre- 
cept and  to  the  canons,  against  an  usurpation,  which  he 
calls  diabolical.  Is  this  the  language  of  a  chief,  of  a 
universal  monarch  ?  Clearly  not.  We  cannot  read 
this  beautiful  letter  of  St.  Gregory  to  the  Patriarchs  of 
Antioch  and  Alexandria  without  being  convinced  that 
Buch  a  Papacy  as  is  now  assumed  to  be  of  divine  rights 
was  unknown  to  him ;  that  he  cried  out  against  ten- 
dencies that  may  be  looked  upon  as  the  first  attempts 
at  universal  jurisdiction  y  that  he  looked  upon  those 
first  attempts  as  an  enterprise  which  might  upset  the 
Church  and  which  threatened  the  rights  of  the  entira 
priesthood.  Perhaps  he  attached  too  much  importance 
to  a  purely  honorary  title  which  only  emanated  from 
the  imperial  authority ;  but  he  saw,  under  this  title,  an 
anti-canonical  undertaking,  and  the  first  attempts  at  a 
universal  Papacy.  What  would  he  say  of  this  Papacy 
itself,  with  all  its  modern  pretensions  ?  He  would  justly 
show  himself  its  greatest  enemy,  and  would  see  in  it  the 


THE  PAPACY.  221 

source  of  all  the  evils  with  which  the  Church  has  been 
for  centuries  overwhelmed. 

The  Patriarch  of  Alexandria,  not  replying  to  him, 
Gregory  wrote  asking  for  his  opinion.* 

Thereupon  John  of  Constantinople  died.  Gregory 
wrote  at  once  to  his  successor,  Cyriacus,  who  had  sent 
him  a  letter  of  communion.  He  congratulates  him  upon 
his  faith,  but  adds,  concerning  the  title  of  universal, 
which  he  had  followed  the  example  of  his  predecessor 
in  taking : 

"  We  shall  truly  be  at  peace,f  if  you  renounce  the 
pride  of  an  impious  title,  according  to  the  word  of  the 
Apostle  of  the  Gentiles,  '  0  Timothy^  keep  that  which 
is  committed  to  thy  trust,  avoiding  profane  and  vain 
babblings.''  (1  Tim.  6  :  20.)  It  is  indeed  too  unjust 
that  those  who  have  become  the  preachers  of  humility, 
should  glory  in  a  vain  title  of  pride.  The  Preacher  of 
truth  says,  *■  God  forbid  that  I  should  glory  save  in  the 
cross  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.''  (Gal.  6  :  14.)  Hence 
he  is  truly  glorious  who  glories  not  in  temporal power^ 
but  in  lohat  he  suffers  for  the  name  of  Christ.  In  this 
we  heartily  embrace  you,  in  this  we  recognize  you  as 
priest,  if,  repelling  the  vanity  of  titles,  you  occupy  an 
holy  see  with  holy  humility. 

"  For  we  have  been  offended  in  respect  to  a  sinful 
title  ;  we  have  had  a  grudge  concerning  it,  we  have  de- 
clared loudly  on  the  subject.  Now  you  know,  my  broth- 
er, that  the  Truth  hath  said,  '  If  thou  bring  thy  gifl 
to  the  altar,  and  there  "rememberest  that  thy  brother 
hath  aught  against  thee,  leave  there  thy  gift  before  the 
altar,  and  go  thy  way ;  first  be  reconciled  to  thy  broth- 
er, and  then  come  and  offer  thy  gift.'  (St.  Matt.  5  : 
23,  24.)  Thus,  although  every  fault  is  wiped  away  by 
the  sacrifice,  the  evil  of  giving  offence  to  the  brethren 

*  Letters  of  St.  Gregory,  Boole  VI.,  Ep.  60,  Benedictine  Ed. 
t  Ibid.  Boolt  Vn.  Ep.  4. 


222  THE  PAPACY. 

is  SO  great,  that  the  Lord  will  not  accept  from  him  who 
is  guilty  of  it  the  sacrifice  that  usually  atones  for  sin. 
Hasten,  therefore,  to  purify  your  heart  of  this  oflence, 
that  the  Lord  may  look  with  favour  upon  the  offering 
of  your  gift." 

Gregory  having  occasion  to  write  again  to  Cyriacus, 
alludes  again  to  the  subject,  so  much  importance  did  he 
attach  to  it : 

"  I  could  not  express  to  you  in  this  letter,"  says  he,* 
"  how  my  soul  is  bound  to  you  ;  but  I  pray  Almighty 
God,  by  the  gift  of  his  grace,  to  strengthen  still  more 
this  union  between  us,  and  destroy  all  occasion  of  of- 
fence, in  order  that  the  holy  Cliurch,  united  by  a  confes- 
sion of  the  true  faith,  of  which  the  bonds  are  riveted 
by  the  reciprocal  sentiments  of  the  faithful,  may  sufier 
no  damage  from  any  discussions  that  the  priests  may 
have  among  themselves.  As  for  me,  in  spite  of  all  I 
say,  and  through  all  the  opposition  that  I  make  to  cer- 
tain acts  of  pride,  I  pi'eserve  charity  in  the  depth  of  my 
heart,  God  be  thanked,  and  while  I  sustain  externally 
the  claims  of  justice,  I  do  not  inwardly  repel  those  of 
love  and  afiection. 

"  On  your  part,  reciprocate  my  sentiments,  and  re- 
spect the  rights  of  peace  and  affection,  that  remaining 
in  unity  of  spirit,  there  may  be  left  no  subject  of  divi- 
sion between  us.  We  shall  the  more  easily  obtain  the 
grace  of  the  Lord  if  we  come  before  him  with  united 
hearts." 

Cyriacus  was  not  touched  by  Gregory's  tender  exlior- 
tations,  who,  some  time  after,  wrote  to  the  Patriarch  of 
Antioch,  blaming  him,  in  a  friendly  way,  for  not  attach- 
ing enough  importance  to  the  usurpation  of  their  broth- 
er of  Constantinople.  We  see  by  that  letter  that  the 
Patriarch  of  Antioch  feared  to  draw  upon  himself  the 

♦  Ibid.  Book  VI.  letter  v. 


THE   PAPACY.  223 

displeasure  of  the  Emperor  if  he  declared  against  the 
Patriarch  of  Constantinople.  He  wrote  his  friend  St. 
Gregory  a  very  flattering  letter.  "  But,"  replied  the 
great  Pope,  "  your  Holiness,  I  perceive,  would  have 
your  letter  like  the  bee  that  carries  both  honey  and  a 
sting,  that  you  might  both  satisfy  me  with  honey  and 
sting  me.  But  I  have  found  in  this  an  occasion  to  re- 
flect upon  these  words  of  Solomon,  '  Faithful  are  the 
wounds  of  a  friend ;  but  the  kisses  of  an  enemy  are  de- 
ceitful.'    (Prov.  27  :  6.) 

"  As  regards  what  you  say  to  me  concerning  the  title 
whereat  I  am  ofiended,  that  I  should  yield,  because  the 
thing  is  of  no  importance,  the  Emperor  has  written  me 
to  the  same  effect.  That  which  he  says  by  virtue  of  his 
power,  I  know  you  say  out  of  friendship.  I  am  not 
surprised  to  find  the  same  expressions  in  your  letter  as 
in  that  of  the  Emperor,  for  love  and  power  have  many 
things  in  common  ;  both  are  in  the  first  rank,  and  they 
always  speak  with  authority. 

"  When  I  received  the  synodical  letter  from  our  broth- 
er and  fellow-bishop,  Cyriacus,  I  did  not  see  fit  to  put 
off  replying  to  him,  in  spite  of  the  impious  title  he  as- 
sumed in  it,  lest  I  should  thereby  trouble  the  unity  of 
the  holy  Church  ;  but  I  took  care  to  tell  him  my  opinion 
touching  this  grand  and  superstitious  title  ;  I  told  him 
that  he  could  not  have  peace  with  us  if  he  did  not  re- 
frain from  taking  this  title  of  pride,  which  was  but  an 
invention  of  the  first  apostate.  You  must  not  consider 
this  same  affiir  as  unimportant ;  for,  if  we  tolerate  it,  we 
corrupt  the  faith  of  the  ichole  Church.  You  know  how 
many,  not  heretics  only  but  heresiarchs,  have  arisen  in 
the  church  of  Constantinople.  Not  to  speak  of  the  in" 
jury  done  to  your  dignity,  it  cannot  be  denied  that  if 
any  one  bishop  be  called  universal,  all  the  Church  crum- 
bles if  that  universal  one  fall.  But  far  be  it  from  me  to 
lend  an  ear  to  such /b/?y,  to  such  levity !    I  confide  in 


224  THE  PAPACY. 

the  all-powerful  Lord,  who  will  fulfil  the  promise  he  has 
made,  '  Whosoever  excdteth  himself  shall  be  abased.^ " 
(Luke  14  :  11.) 

No  one  could  more  wisely  estimate  than  does  St. 
Gregory  the  serious  inconveniences  that  the  Church 
might  suffer  from  a  central  authority  assuming  to  repre- 
sent and  sum  up  the  Church.  Man,  whatever  he  may 
be,  and  frequently  from  the  superiour  dignity  itself  with 
which  he  is  invested,  is  subject  to  errour  :  iithe  Church 
be  sum.med  up  in  him^  the  Church  falls  with  him.  Such 
is  St.  Gregory's  reasoning.  He  foresaw  but  too  well ; 
and  the  Roman  Church  has  fallen  into  endless  errours, 
with  a  Pope  who  claims  to  sum  her  up  in  his  own 
person,  and  to  be  her  infallible  personification. 

Happily  the  Church  of  Jesus  Christ  is  neither  that  of 
one  time  nor  that  of  one  place,  and  she  may  always  be 
distinguished  by  the  Catholic  criterion  so  clearly  set 
forth  by  the  Fathers  of  the  Church.  Otherwise,  we 
must  cease  to  believe  the  promises  of  Christ,  and  must 
say  in  an  absolute  sense  what  St.  Gregory  said  hypothet- 
ically.  The  universal  one  has  fallen,  the  whole  Church 
has  fallen  ! 

They  said  at  the  court  of  Constantinople,  that  Greg- 
ory only  made  such  fierce  war  against  the  title  of  uni- 
versal' from  jealousy  of  the  Bishop  of  the  New  Rome, 
and  to  debase  him.  The  Emperor  and  Cyriacus  wrote 
thus  to  him  with  all  the  respect  that  was  his  due ;  but 
Gregory  made  Cyriacus  clearly  understand  that  he  had 
misjudged  him.  He  sent  to  him  and  to  the  Emperor  a 
deacon,  Anatolius  by  name,  to  undeceive  them,  giving 
him  letters  for  the  Emperor  and  the  Patriarch.  To  the 
latter,  after  thanking  him  for  his  flattering  words,  he 
says  :* 

"  It  must  be  not  only  by  words,  but  by  deeds,  that 

•  Book  vn.  Ep.  81. 


THE  PAPACY.  225 

you  show  to  me  and  to  all  your  brethren  the  splendour 
of  your  charity,  by  hastening  to  renounce  a  title  of  pride, 
which  has  been  a  cause  of  offence  to  all  the  churches. 
Fulfil  these  words,  ^Endeavour  to  keep  the  unity  of  the 
Spirit  in  the  bond  of  peace  ^  (Eph.  4  :  3,)  and  this  other, 
'•Give  none  occasion  to  the  adversary  to  speak  reproach- 
fully.^ (1  Tim.  5  :  14.)  Your  charity  will  shine  forth  if 
there  be  no  division  between  us-in  respect  to  a  vainglo- 
rious title.  I  call  Jesus  to  witness,  from  the  depth  of 
my  soul,  that  I  do  not  wish  to  give  offence  to  any  person, 
from  the  least  to  the  greatest.  I  desire  all  to  be  great 
and  honoured,  provided  such  honour  detracts  nothing 
from  that  which  is  due  to  Almighty  God.  Indeed,  who- 
ever woidd  be  honoured  against  God  is  not  honourable  in 
my  eyes.  .  .  .  In  this  matter  I  would  injure  no  one  ; 
I  would  only  defend  that  humility  M'hich  is  pleasing  to 
God  and  the  peace  of  the  holy  Church.  Let  the  thmgs 
newly  introduced  be  therefore  abrogated  in  the  same 
manner  as  they  have  been  established,  and  we  shall 
preserve  amongst  us  the  purest  peace  of  the  Lord. 
What  kindly  relations  can  exist  between  us  if  our  senti- 
ments are  but  words,  and  we  wound  one  another  with 
our  deeds  ?" 

In  his  letter  to  the  Emperor,  Gregory  devotes  himself 
to  refuting  the  argument  that  was  drawn  from  the  in- 
significance of  this  honorary  title,  to  which  they  pre- 
tended, at  Constantinople,  not  to  attach  any  great  im- 
portance. "I  pray  your  Imperial  Piety,"  he  says,* 
"  to  observe  that  there  are  some  frivolous  things  that 
are  inoffensive,  but  also  some  others  that  are  very  hurt- 
ful. When  Antichrist  shall  come  and  call  himself  God^ 
it  will  be  in  itself  a  perfectly  frivolous  thing,  but  a  very 
pernicious  one.  If  we  only  choose  to  consider  the  num- 
ber of  syllables  in  this  word,  we  find  but  two,  {De-us  ;) 

•  Book  VII.  Ep.  88. 


226  THE   PAPACY. 

but  if  we  conceive  the  weight  of  iniquity  of  this  title,  we 
shall  find  it  enormous.  I  say  it  without  the  least  hesi- 
tation, whoever  calls  himself  the  universal  bishop.,  or  de- 
sires this  title,  is,  by  his  pride,  THE  PRECURSOR  OF 
ANTICHRIST,  because  he  thus  attempts  to  raise  him- 
self above  the  others.  The  errour  into  which  he  falls 
springs  from  pride  equal  to  that  of  Antichrist ;  for  as 
that  Wicked  One  wished  to  be  regarded  as  exalted  above 
other  men,  like  a  god,  so  likewise  whoever  would  be  call- 
ed sole  bishop  exalteth  himself  above  others." 

Nowadays  they  teach,  in  the  name  of  the  Chui-ch  and 
in  favour  of  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  the  same  doctrine  that 
St.  Gregory  stigmatized  with  so  much  energy.  The 
partisans  of  the  Papacy  teach  continually  that  the  Pope 
has  a  universal  authority — that  he  is  the  universal 
bishop — that,  properly  speaking,  he  is  the  only  bishop, 
the  source  whence  flows  all  ecclesiastical  dignity,  in- 
cluding the  episcopate,  which  is  but  indirectly  and  medi- 
ately of  divine  right. 

Such  is  the  instruction  that  they  would  now  foist 
upon  us  as  Catholic  doctrine.  Do  our  modern  inno- 
vators apprehend  that  Pope  Gregory  the  Great  regarded 
such  a  doctrine  as  diabolical,  and  has,  in  anticipation, 
called  this  Pope,  so  mvested  with  an  assumed  universal 
episcopate,  Antichrist  ? 

St.  Gregory  was  in  the  habit  of  taking  no  important 
decision  without  giving  information  of  it  to  the  other 
Patriarchs.  lie  therefore  wrote  to  those  of  Alexandria 
and  Antioch,  to  inform  them  what  course  he  had 
adopted  with  regard  to  the  new  Patriarch  of  Constanti- 
nople. Eulogius,  Patriarch  of  Alexandria,  was  per- 
suaded, and  announced  to  Gregory  that  he  would  no 
longer  give  tlie  title  universal  to  the  Bishop  of  Constan- 
tinople ;  but,  thinking  to  flatter  Gregory,  whom  he  loved 
and  who  had  done  him  service  on  many  occasions,  he 
gave  the  same  title  to  him,  and  wrote  that  if  he  did  not 


THE   PAPACY.  227 

give  it  to  the  Bishop  of  Constantinople,  it  was  in  sub- 
mission to  the  COMMANDS  of  Gregory.  Gregory  an- 
swered at  once,  and  the  following  •passage  from  his 
answer  shows  what  idea  he  had  of  his  own  authority 
as  bishop  of  Rome : 

"  Your  Holiness  has  been  at  pains  to  tell  us  that  in 
addressing  certain  persons  you  no  longer  give  them  cer- 
tain titles  that  have  no  better  origin  than  pride,  using 
this  phrase  regarding  me,  'as  you  have  commanded!' 
I  pray  you  let  me  never  again  hear  this  word  command; 
for  I  know  who  I  am  and  who  you  are.  BY  YOUR 
POSITION  YOU  ARE  MY  BRETHREN ;  by  your 
virtues  you  are  my  fathers.  I  have.,  therefore,  not  com- 
manded ;  I  have  only  been  careful  to  j^oint  out  tilings 
which  seemed  to  me  useful.  Still  I  do  not  find  that  your 
Holiness  has  perfectly  remembered  what  I  particularly 
wished  to  impress  on  your  memory ;  for  I  said  that  you 
should  no  more  give  that  title  to  me  than  to  others  ;  and 
lo !  in  the  superscription  of  your  letter,  you  give  to  me, 
who  have  proscribed  them,  the  vainglorious  titles  of  imi- 
versal  and  of  Pope.  May  your  sweet  Holiness  do  so  no 
more  in  future,  I  beseech  you ;  for  you  take  from  yourself 
what  you  give  in  excess  to  another.  I  do  not  ask  to  in- 
crease in  dignities,  but  in  virtues.  I  do  not  esteem  that 
an  honour  which  causes  my  brethren  to  lose  their  own 
dignity.  My  honour  is  that  of  the  whole  Church.  My 
honour  is  the  unshaken  firmness  of  my  brethren.  I  con- 
sider myself  truly  honoured  when  no  one  is  denied  the 
honour  due  to  him.  If  your  Holiness  calls  me  universal 
Pope,  you  deny  that  you  are  yourself  what  I  should 
then  be  altogether.  God  forbid!  Far  from  us  be  the 
words  that  puff  up  vanity  and  wound  charity." 

Thus  did  Pope  Gregory  condemn,  even  in  the  person 
of  the  Bisliops  of  Rome,  the  title  of  Pope  and  that  of  uni- 
versal. He  acknowledges  that  the  Patriarch  of  Alexan- 
dria is  his  equal,  that  he  is  not  entitled  to  lay  any  com- 


228  THE  PAPACY. 

mands    upon  him,  and  consequently  that  he   has  no 
authority  over  him. 

How  is  this  ortkodox  doctrine  of  St.  Gregory's  to  be 
reconciled  with  the  modern  teaching  that  ascribes  to 
the  Pope  a  universal  authority  of  divine  right?  Let 
the  defenders  of  the  Papacy  answer. 

St.  Gregory,  consistent  with  himself,  sees  the  unity 
of  the  Church  only  in  the  true  faith,  and  never  makes 
the  least  allusion  to  the  necessity  of  being  in  communion 
with  the  Church  of  Rome. 

And  no  wonder ;  for  he  did  not  regard  the  see  of 
Rome  as  the  only  see  of  St.  Peter.  He  expressly  ac- 
knowledged that  the  sees  of  Alexandria  and  Antioch 
were,  quite  as  much  as  that  of  Rome,  the  see  of  the  first 
of  the  Apostles,  and  that  these  three  sees  were  but  one. 
Let  us  quote  his  words.  He  writes  thus  to  Eulogius, 
Patriarch  of  Alexandria  :* 

"  Your  Holiness  has  spoken  to  me  at  large,  in  your 
letters,  of  the  see  of  St.  Peter,  prince  of  the  Apostles, 
saying  that  he  still  resides  here  by  his  successors. 
Now,  I  acknowledge  myself  unworthy  not  only  of  the 
honour  of  the  chiefs,  but  even  to  be  counted  in  the  num- 
ber of  the  faithful.  Yet  I  have  willingly  accepted  all 
that  you  have  said,  because  your  words  regarding  the 
see  of  Peter  came  from  him  who  occupies  that  see  of 
Peter.  A  special  honour  has  no  charms  for  rae ;  but  I 
greatly  rejoice  that  you,  who  are  very  holy,  only  ascribe 
to  me  what  you  also  give  to  yourself.  Indeed,  who  is 
ignorant  that  the  holy  Church  has  been  made  fast  upon 
the  solidity  of  the  prince  of  the  Apostles,  whose  name 
js  the  type  of  the  firmness  of  his  soul,  and  who  borrowed 
from  the  rock  his  name  of  Peter  ? — that  it  was  said  to 
him  by  the  Truth,  '  I  will  give  unto  thee  the  keys  of 
the  kingdom  of  heaven  .  .  .  When  thou  art  con- 
verted strengthen  thy  brethren.    .    .     Simon^  Son  of 

*  lb.  Book  VII.  Ep.  89. 


THE  PAPACY.  229 

Jbnas^  lovest  thou  me?  Feed  my  sheep"  Therefore, 
though  there  were  many  Apostles,  the  single  see  of  the 
prince  of  the  Apostles  prevailed  by  his  princedom ; 
which  see  now  exists  in  three  places  ;  for  it  is  he  that 
made  glorious  that  see  where  he  condescended  to  rest 
{quiescere)  and  close  his  present  life.  It  is  he  who 
adorned  the  see,  whither  he  sent  the  Evangelist,  his  dis- 
ciple. It  is  he  who  strengthened  the  see,  which  he 
occupied  for  seven  years,  although  finally  compelled  to 
leave  it.  Since  then  there  is  but  one  see  of  the  same 
Apostle,  and  three  bishops  now  hold  it  by  divine  author- 
ity. All  the  good  I  hear  of  you  I  also  impute  to  my- 
self." 

Observe  that  St.  Gregory,  in  speaking  of  Rome,  only 
says  that  St.  Peter  rested  there  and  died  there.  To 
Alexandria  he  only  sent  his  disciple  ;  but  at  Antioch  he 
heM  the  see  for  seven  years.  If,  then,  in  the  strict  accepta- 
tion of  the  words,  any  bishop  has  inherited  the  see  of 
St.  Peter,  it  must  be,  according  to  St.  Gregory,  the 
Bishop  of  Antioch.  The  great  Pope  was  well  aware 
that  Peter  only  went  to  Rome  to  die  there ;  that  the 
Roman  Church  was  already  founded  and  governed  by 
a  bishop  ;  he  accordingly  limits  himself  to  saying  that 
he  made  glorious  the  see  of  Rome  by  the  martyrdom  he 
suffered  there,  while  he  designates  Antioch  as  the  true 
episcopal  see  of  Peter.  We  believe  that  St.  Peter  was, 
strictly  speaking,  no  more  bishop  of  Antioch  than  of 
Rome ;  but  we  only  wish  to  show  what  was  the  opinion 
of  St.  Gregory ;  and  that  opinion,  whatever  it  was,  is  no 
less  a  withering  argument  against  the  pretensions  of  the 
court  of  Rome. 

Writing  to  Anastasius,  Patriarch  of  Antioch,  to  offer 
consolation  in  his  sufferings,  Gregory  says  :*  "  Behold 
now,  your  Holiness  is  weighed  down  with  many  tribu- 
lations in  your  old  age ;  but  remember  what  was  said 

♦  lb.  Book  Vm.  Ep.  2. 


230  THE  PAPACY. 

of  him  rohose  seat  you  Jill.  Is  it  not  of  him  that  the 
Truth  himself  said,  '  When  thou  shalt  be  old  .  .  .  an- 
other shall  gird  thee,  and  carry  thee  xohither  thou 
wouldest  not"  f     (John  21  :  18.) 

We  know  that  these  words  were  addressed  by  our 
Lord  to  St.  Peter.  In  another  letter  to  the  same  Anas- 
tasius,  St.  Gregory  thus  expresses  himself,  after  having 
quoted  what  he  believed  to  be  the  words  of  St.  Ignatius 
of  Antioch  : 

"  I  have  introduced  in  my  letter  these  words  drawn 
from  your  writings,  that  your  Holiness  may  know  that 
your  own  holy  Ignatius  is  also  ours.  For  as  we  have 
in  common  the  master,  the  prince  of  the  Apostles,  we 
must  neither  of  us  exclusively  claim  the  disciple  of  this 
prince  of  the  Apostles."* 

St.  Gregory  wrote  to  Eulogius,  Patriarch  of  Alexan- 
dria, "  We  have  received,  with  the  same  tenderness  as 
it  was  given  us,  the  benediction  of  St.  Mark  the  Evan- 
gelist, or  rather,  more  properly  speaking,  of  the  Apostle 

St.  Peter."t 

He  wrote  again  to  the  same,  after  having  congratu- 
lated him  upon  his  refutation  of  the  errours  of  the  Mono- 
physites : 

"  Praise  and  glory  be  in  the  heavens  to  my  saintly 
brother,  thanks  to  whom  the  voice  of  Mark  is  heard 
from  the  chair  of  Peter,  whose  teaching  resounds 
through  the  Church  as  the  cymbal  in  the  tabernacle, 
when  he  fithoras  the  mysteries — that  is  to  say,  when, 
as  priest  of  the  Most  Highest,  he  enters  the  Holy  of 
Holies."! 

Was  any  thing  more  flattering  ever  said  to  the 
Bishops  of  Rome  than  Gregory  here  says  to  Eulogius 
of  Alexandria  ?  Does  not  the  saintly  Pope  seem  to 
copy    the   very    words   of  the   Council   of  Chalcedon, 

*  lb.  Book  V.  Ep.  39.  +  lb.  Book  VIU.  Ep.  39.  %  lb.  Book  X  Ep.  85. 


THE  PAPACY.  231 

"  Peter  has  spoken  by  the  moutli  of  Leo"  ?  Why  draw 
such  vast  consequences  from  the  words  of  the  Fathers  of 
Chalcedon,  spoken  in  praise  of  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  and 
yet  draw  none  wliatever  from  those  of  the  great  Pope 
addressed  to  the  Patriarch  of  Alexandria  ?  He  wrote 
again  to  the  same  :*  "  The  bearers  of  these  presents, 
having  come  to  Sicily,  were  converted  from  the  errours  of 
the  Monophysites  and  have  joined  the  holy  Church  uni- 
versal. Desiring  to  go  to  the  Church  of  the  blessed  Peter ^ 
prince  of  the  Apostles,  they  have  besought  me  to  give 
them  commendatory  letters  to  your  Holiness,  in  order 
that  you  might  assist  them  against  the  attacks  of  their 
heretical  neighbours." 

In  another  letter,  in  which  he  discourses  of  simony,  he 
writes  to  Eulogius  :  "  Root  out  this  siraoniacal  heresy 
from  your  most  holy  see,  which  is  ours  also."  He  calls 
the  Church  of  Alexandria  a  most  holy  church.\  With 
such  evidence  before  us,  how  can  we  draw  any  conclu- 
sion in  favour  of  the  Roman  see  from  expressions  like 
these  of  apostolic  see,  or  holy  see  ?  Such  epithets  were 
common,  during  the  first  eight  centuries,  to  all  the 
churches  founded  by  the  Apostles,  and  were  never  exclu- 
sively employed  to  describe  the  Church  of  Rome. 

From  what  we  have  shown  of  the  doctrine  of  St. 
Gregory  respecting  the  see  of  St.  Peter,  it  is  easy  to  see 
that  no  absolute  sense  can  be  honestly  attached  to  such 
expressions  as  these,  "  My  son,  the  lord  Venantius  has 
come  toioard  the  blessed  Apostle  Peter  to  beg  me  to  com- 
mend his  cause  to  you,"  etc.J  "  The  care  of  the  whole 
Church  was  confided  to  Peter,  prince  of  the  Apostles."§ 
"  He  received  the  keys  of  the  heavenly  kingdom,  the 
power  to  bind  and  to  loose  was  given  to  him,  the  care 
of  the  whole  Church,  and  the  princedom  wer.e  intrusted 
to  him."||     "  Who  does  not  know  that  the  holy  Church 

*  Ibid.  Book  XII.  Ep.  50.  i  t  Ibid.  Book  XIU.  Ep.  41. 

X  Ibid.  Book  II.  Ep.  53.  §  Ibid.  Book  V.  Ep.  20.  1  Ibid. 


232  THE  PAPACY. 

has  been  strengthened  by  the  firmness  of  the  prince  of 
the  Apostles  ?"* 

These  expressions  certainly  belong  to  St.  Gregory; 
but  is  it  fair  to  quote  them  separately  and  give  them  an 
absolute  sense  ?  Yet  this  is  the  course  of  the  Romish 
theologians,  not  only  with  the  woi-ks  of  Gregory,  but 
with  all  those  of  the  other  Fathers  of  the  Church.  In 
this  manner  they  have  succeeded  in  deceiving  a  great 
number  of  the  faithful,  and  even  many  sincere  theolo- 
gians ;  the  latter  could  not  suspect  such  a  strange  dis- 
honesty in  writers  who  at  every  turn  are  boasting  of 
their  devotion  to  the  cause  of  the  Church  and  truth,  and 
they  have  thought  it  safe  to  quote  from  them  at  second 
hand. 

We  can  now  understand  what  St.  Gregory  meant  by 
the  see  of  St.  Peter ^  and  by  the  titles  of  iirst  and  prince 
of  the  Apostles.  But  that  we  may  throw  still  stronger 
light  upon  his  thoughts,  we  will  quote  a  few  more  texts, 
both  decisive  and  clear,  which  shall  determine  the  exact 
meaning  of  these  phrases,  that  have  been  so  culpably 
misused  by  the  advocates  of  Popery. 

St.  Gregory,  in  his  book  upon  the  Pastoral  Pide,  lays 
down  this  principle :  that  the  pastors  of  the  Church 
should  not  use  their  authority  toward  blameless  believ- 
ers, but  only  toward  sinners  whom  gentleness  could  not 
correct.  In  support  of  this  principle  he  quotes  the  ex- 
amples of  the  Apostles  Peter  and  Paul.  "  Peter,"  he 
says,  '"'•the  first  pastor  holding  the  princedom  of  the  holy 
Church.,  by  the  will  of  God.,  {aicctore  Deo,)  showed  him- 
self humble  toward  the  faithful,  but  showed  how  much 
power  he  had  beyond  others  when  he  punished  Ananias 
and  Sapphira ;  when  it  became  necessary  to  punish 
sins,  he  remembered  that  he  was  the  highest  in  the 
Church.,  {su)7imus,)  and  in  taking  vengeance  of  the 
crime,  he  exercised  the  right  of  his  poicer.^''  f 

*  n>id.  Book  VII.  Ep.  40.  t  St.  Greg.  Pastoral  Rule,  Part  n.  chap.  vl. 


THE  PAPACY.  233 

In  the  same  passage  he  proves  by  the  example  of  St. 
Paul,  as  well  as  by  that  of  St.  Peter,  that  the  pastor  should 
be  humble  toward  the  faithful,  and  only  exercise  his 
power  when  he  is  compelled  to  take  in  hand  the  cause 
of  justice.  Thus  St.  Paul  declared  himself  the  servant 
of  the  faithful,  the  least  among  them ;  "  but,"  adds  St. 
Gregory,  "  when  he  finds  a  fault  to  correct,  he  remem- 
bers he  is  master^  and  says,  '  What  will  ye  f  I  will  come 
to  you  with  a  rod  of  iron.''  Hence,"  concludes  St. 
Gregory,  the  highest  places  are  best  filled  when  he  who 
presides  rules  rather  his  own  vices  than  the  brethren. 
But  when  those  xoho  preside  correct  those  who  are  sub- 
ject unto  them,  they  should  observe  this  duty,"  etc.* 

It  appears  from  this  that  St.  Gregory  regarded  St.  Paul 
as  well  as  St.  Peter  and  their  successors  as  filling  the 
highest  place  in  the  Church,  as  presiding  in  the  Church. 
If  he  says  that  Peter  held  the  princedom,  he  also  says 
that  Paul  was  w.aster  ;  he  uses  the  same  word  {summus) 
to  signify  the  authority  of  St.  Peter  and  that  of  St.  Paul, 
and  of  all  those  who  have  the  right  to  exercise  author- 
ity in  the  Church.  Would  he  have  expressed  himself  in 
a  manner  so  general,  if  by  this  word  princedom  he  had 
meant  to  signify  a  superiour  authority  ascribed  exclu- 
sively to  St.  Peter  ?  Just  as  by  the  see  of  St.  Peter,  he 
means  the  first  degree  of  the  episcopate  represented  by 
the  Patriarchs;  so  likewise  by  the  words  '■^superiour 
authority,^''  he  only  means  that  of  the  episcopate  which 
the  pastors  of  the  Church  have  inherited. 

The  more  intima,te  we  grow  with  the  works  of  the  Fa- 
thers of  the  Church,  the  more  we  are  convinced  of  their 
unanimity  in  considering  the  authority  in  the  Church  as 
one  and  possessed  jointly  and  severally  by  the  first  pas- 
tors or  the  bishops.  At  first  blush  we  might  believe 
that  the  word  '•'•princedom^''  or  that  of  '-'■  prince  "  of  the 
Apostles,  given  by  them  to  St.  Peter,  clashed  with  this 

*  St.  Greg.  loc.  clt 


234  THE  PAPACY. 

principle.  St.  Gregory  has  shielded  us  from  this  false 
interpretation.  For  while  ascribing  to  Peter  the  prince- 
dom  of  the  Church,  he  has  not  exalted  him  more  than  St. 
Paul.  He  shall  tell  us  so  most  clearly  in  his  own  words. 
We  read  in  his  Dialogues : 

"Peter.  How  can  you  prove  to  me  that  there  be  those 
who  do  no  miracles,  and  yet  are  not  inferior  to  those 
who  do  them  ? 

"  Gregory.  Dost  thou  not  know  that  the  Apostle 
Paul  is  the  brother  of  Peter,  first  of  the  Apostles  in  the 
princedom  f 

"Peter.  I  know  this  perfectly,"  etc.,  etc.* 

Thus  Paul  was  the  equal  or  brother  of  Peter  in  the 
Apostolic  princedom.  Is  it  possible  to  say  with  greater 
clearness  that  by  such  titles  no  particular  personal  and 
exclusive  dignity  was  intended  ? 

In  another  place  St.  Gregory  regards  St.  Paul  as 
having  a  right,  as  well  as  St.  Peter,  to  the  title  oi  first 
Apostle.  In  relating  in  his  Dialogues  the  death  of  one 
Martin,  a  priest,  he  says  that  this  holy  man  saw  Peter 
and  Paul  calling  him  to  heaven :  "  I  see,  I  see,"  said 
Martin.     "  I  thank  you.     I  thank  you  !" 

As  he  often  repeated  these  words,  his  friends  about 
him  asked  him  to  whom  he  spoke.  He  wondered  at 
their  question,  and  said,  "  Do  you  not  see  here  the  holy 
Apostles  ?  do  you  not  perceive  Peter  and  Paul  the  first 
of  the  Apostles  r'\ 

And  lastly,  Gregory  leads  us  to  think  that  St.  Peter 
was  never  Bishop  of  Rome.  We  have  already  quoted 
some  positive  texts  on  this  point.  Here  is  another  to 
confirm  them  : 

"  It  is  certain,"  he  says,  "  that  at  the  time  when  the 
holy  Apostles  Peter  and  Paul  sufiered  martyrdom,  the 
faithful  came  from  the  East  to  beg  the  bodies  of  these 
Apostles,  icho  were  their  feUow-countrymen.    They  car- 

*  St.  Greg.  Dialogues,  Book  I.  chap.  12.  t  Ibid.  Book  IV.  Chap.  11. 


THE  PAPACY.  235 

ried  these  bodies  as  far  as  the  second  mile  stone,  and 
deposited  them  in  the  place  called  the  Catacombs.  But 
when  they  would  have  taken  them  up,  to  continue  their 
journey,  the  thunder  and  lightning  threw  those  who  at- 
tempted it  into  such  a  panic  that  no  one  has  ever  again 
dared  to  attempt  their  removal."* 

It  is  not  our  business  to  discuss  the  truth  of  this  story; 
but  one  truth  may  be  clearly  inferred  from  this  recital, 
namely,  that  the  Eastern  people  could  claim  the  body  of 
St.  Peter  because  he  was  of  their  country.,  and  that  the 
Romans  never  dreamed  of  answering  that  his  body  be- 
longed by  a  better  title  to  them,  because  he  had  been, 
their  bishop. 

Thus  the  doctrine  of  Gregory  the  Great  upon  the 
Church  destroys,  piece  by  piece,  the  whole  Papal  sys- 
tem. We  defy  the  Romanists  to  find  in  the  writings  of 
this  great  Pope  a  single  word  which  gives  any  idea  of 
that  universal  monarchy  whose  centre  is  in  the  Church 
of  Rome,  and  whose  sovereign  the  bishop  of  that  city. 
This  doctrine  runs  utterly  counter  to  that  of  St.  Gregory. 
According  to  him,  the  unity  of  the  Church  results  from 
the  reciprocal  relations  of  its  chiefs.  "May  your  piety," 
he  wrote  to  Anastasius,  Archbishop  of  Corinth,  "  reply 
to  our  letters  in  which  we  have  notified  him  of  our  or- 
dination, and  by  replying  (litteris  reciprocis)  give  us  the 
pleasure  of  knoxoing  that  the  Church  is  united.'''' 

He  defines  the  "  miity  of  the  Catholic  Church"  as 
"  the  totality  {compago)  of  the  body  of  Christ. "f  He 
does  not  swerve  from  this  :  the  individual  churches  are 
the  members  of  the  church  ;  each  church  is  governed  by 
its  pastors  ;  the  authority  is  the  same,  of  divine  right, 
in  all  the  pastors  of  the  Church  ;  the  whole  edifice  is 
supported  upon  the  see  of  St.  Peter ;  that  is,  upon  the 
patriarchates  of  Alexandria,  Antioch,  and  Rome,  which 

*  Letters  of  St.  Gregory,  Book  IV.  Ep.  80. 
t  Ibid.  Book  II.  Ep.  47. 


236  THE  PAPACY. 

exercise,  of  ecclesiastical  rights  a  supervision  over  the 
whole  Church. 

Can  any  thing  be  conceived  more  diametrically  op- 
posed to  the  Papal  system  than  this  doctrine  of  St. 
Gregory  ? 

Maurice  having  been  killed  byPhocas,  Pope  Boniface 
m.  hastened  to  apply  to  the  murderer,  that  he  might 
obtain  official  recognition  of  the  primacy  of  the  Roman 
Church.  He  saw  it  imperilled  by  the  title  of  cecumeni- 
cal,  that  Maurice  had  granted  to  John  the  Faster. 
That  pious  emperor  had  been  the  chief  support  of  the 
title  taken  by  the  Bishop  of  Constantinople.  The  Patri- 
arch did  not  long  enjoy  the  good  graces  of  Phocas, 
whose  violence  he  condemned,  Rome  made  advances 
to  the  tyrant ;  Gregory  the  Great  himself  covered  him 
with  adulation ;  and  Boniface  III.,  who  was  raised  to 
the  see  of  Rome  after  the  short  episcopate  of  Sabinian, 
wrote  to  the  murderer  of  Maurice,  to  ask  for  the  same 
title  of  oecumenical  that  Gregory  the  Great  had  so  en- 
ergetically condemned.*  It  was  generally  understood 
that  the  Bishop  of  Constantinople  assumed  by  this  title 
to  be  the  first  in  the  Church.  Accordingly,  the  historian 
of  the  Popes,  Anastasius  the  Librarian,  thus  mentions 
this  proceeding  of  Boniface  III. : 

"He  (Boniface)f  obtained  from  the  Emperor  Phocas, 
that  the  Apoetolic  see  of  the  blessed  Apostle  Petei",  that 
is  to  say,  the  Roman  Church,  should  be  the  cAie/*  (caput, 
the  head)  of  all  the  churches,  because  the  Church  of 
Constantinople  wrote  that  she  was  the  first  of  all  the 
churches." 

Paul  the  Deacon  thus  records  the  same  fact : J  "  At 
the  request  of  Pope  Boniface,  Phocas  decreed  that  the 
see  of  the  Roman  and  Apostolic  Church  should  be  the 
chief  {caput)  of  all  the  churches,  because  the  Church  of 

•  NoSl  Alexandre.  Hist.  Eccl.       t  Anast.  De  Vlt  Eom.  Pontlf.  {  6T.  Bonlt  HL 
X  Paul.  Dlac.  De  Gestis  Longobard.  Lib.  VW.  %  87. 


THE  PAPACY.  237 

Constantinople  wrote  that  she  was  the  first  of  all  the 
churches." 

Such  is  for  the  Church  of  Rome  the  official  origin  of 
the  title  of  chief  of  the  universal  Church,  which  she 
claims  for  her  bishop.  It  had  been  given  to  him  occa- 
sionally before,  but  only  in  flattery,  and  without  attach- 
ing to  it  any  other  meaning  than  that  of  head  of  the 
episcopate,  or  oi  first  bishop  y  it  was  occasionally  given 
to  the  Roman  Church  itself,  and  then  the  word  caput 
only  meant  chief  in  the  sense  of  head.  She  had  been 
called  head  of  the  Church,  that  is,  first  of  the  churches. 
This  title,  becoming  official,  thanks  to  Phocas,  soon 
changed  its  signification.  "  Chief"  no  longer  meant 
head,  but  sovereign  prince  ;  to-day  it  means  absolute 
monarch,  infallible  autocrat.  Such  is  the  progress  of 
this  title  of  caput,  given  to  the  Roman  Church  by  Pho- 
cas, one  of  the  vilest  men  that  ever  occupied  a  throne. 

Some  years  later  (633)  arose  the  quarrel  of  the  Mono- 
thelites,  which  gives  us  further  proofs  against  the  Papal 
system,  and  demonstrates  that  in  the  seventh  century 
the  self-styled  universal  authority  of  the  Bishops  of  Rome 
was  not  recognized.* 

An  Arabian  bishop,  named  Theodore,  starting  from 
this  Catholic  truth,  defined  at  Chalcedon,  that  there  is 
but  one  person  in  Christ,  inferred  that  there  was  in 
Christ  but  one  will  and  owe  operation.  He  thus  neg- 
lected the  distinction  of  the  two  natures,  divine  and 
human,  which  are  hypostatically  united  in  Jesus  Christ, 
but  not  mingled,  and  which  retain  their  respective  es- 
sence, each  consequently  with  its  own  will  and  its  own 
proper  action  or  operation,  since  will  and  action  are  as 
necessary  attributes  of  the  human  being  as  of  God. 
Theodore  thus  confounded  being  with  personality.  Ser- 
gius.  Bishop  of  Constantinople,  consulted  by  Theodore, 

•  See  Theoph.  Eccl.  Hist.,  and  Labbe's  Collection  of  the  Councils,  vol.  vi.  for 
the  docnmenta.  See  also  Hlstolre  du  Monoth^lisme,  par  Combefls. 


238  THE  PAPACY. 

fell  into  the  same  errour  with  him.  He  believed  that  his 
system  was  calculated  to  bring  back  to  the  Church  those 
who  were  still  opposed  to  the  Council  of  Chalcedon. 
Accordingly,  he  sent  them  a  paper  upon  this  subject,  and 
opened  communications  with  them.  Cyrus,  Bishop  of 
Alexandria,  who  shared  his  views,  did  the  same,  and 
many  of  the  opponents  of  the  Council  of  Chalcedon  ac- 
cepted its  decrees  with  this  pretended  explanation. 

This  result  encouraged  the  Monothelite  bishops,  who 
were  also  sustained  by  the  Emperor  Heraclius.  Sophro- 
nius,  a  monk  of  Alexandria,  had  declared  against  his 
bishop,  and  had  gone  to  Constantinople  to  confer  upon 
the  question  with  Sergius,  whom  he  found  in  perfect 
agreement  ^\\t\\  Cyrus.  Sophronius,  in  despair  for  this 
new  errour,  was  returning  when  he  was  elected  Bishop 
of  Jerusalem.  Sergius,  believing  that  in  his  high  posi- 
tion Sophronius  would  declare  against  him,  and  would 
seek  the  support  of  the  West,  wrote  to  Honorius,  Bishop 
of  Rome,  setting  forth  his  doctrine,  and  its  good  results 
in  the  East,  particularly  at  Alexandria.  Honorius  re- 
plied with  his  famous  letter,  in  which  he  also  only  re- 
cognizes one  will  and  one  operation  in  Jesus  Christ ;  he 
censured  those  who  were  in  favour  of  admitting  two,  and 
promised  to  remain  in  perfect  harmony  with  Sergius, 
telling  him,  however,  at  the  same  time,  that  the  Church 
should  not  be  troubled  by  this  new  question,  whether 
there  were  one  or  two  wills  or  operations,  and  that 
such  a  war  of  words  should  be  left  to  grammarians. 

Sophronius,  ordained  Bishop  of  Jerusalem,  at  once 
assembled  his  synod,  and  read  before  it  the  letter  of 
communion,  which,  according  to  custom,  he  was  to  ad- 
dress to  the  other  Patriarchs  of  the  Church.  He  sent  it 
to  Sergius  and  also  to  Honorius.  This  letter  was  very 
explicit  in  regard  to  the  two  wills  and  two  operations. 
Honorius,  having  read  it,  told  the  messengers  of  Sophro- 
nius that,  for  the  good  of  the  Church,  it  was  best  nqj 


THE  PAPACY.  239 

to  agitate  that  question.  The  messengers  agreed  to 
this,  and  Honorius  wrote  to  the  Patriarchs  of  Con- 
stantinople and  Alexandria,  making  the  same  re- 
quest. 

Sophronius,  who  saw  that  the  faith  was  in  peril,  wrote 
a  paper,  in  which  he  proved  from  the  Fathers  that,  ac- 
cording to  the  constant  traditions  of  the  Church,  two 
wills  and  two  operations  should  be  recognized  in  Jesus 
Christ.  He  proved  this  to  be  the  necessary  consequence 
of  the  two  natures.  In  despair  of  convincing  Sergius 
and  Cyrus,  who  had  openly  declared  in  favour  of  the 
contrary  doctrine,  he  sent  one  of  his  suffragan  bishops 
to  Rome,  hoping  to  overcome  her  hesitancy  rather  than 
to  convert  Constantinople  or  Alexandria.  We  are  ig- 
norant of  the  result  of  this  embassy.  Honorius  died  in 
638,  and  was  succeeded  by  Severinus,  who  in  turn  was 
succeeded  soon  after  by  John  IV.  It  was  during  the 
brief  pontificate  of  Severinus  that  the  Emperor  Herac- 
lius  published  his  "E/c^eaij,  or  Exposition^  to  give  an  of- 
ficial character  to  the  Monothelite  doctrine.  This  "E/c^eatj 
was  addressed  to  all  the  bishops,  and  was  solemnly  ac- 
cepted by  those  of  Alexandria  and  Constantinople.  It 
is  not  known  whether  Severinus  approved  it  or  not. 
But  after  the  death  of  Heraclius,  John  IV.  condemned 
it  in  a  Roman  council.  We  perhaps  owe  that  condem- 
nation to  the  explanations  of  the  envoy  of  Sophronius. 
Sergius  had  died  before  this  decision  of  the  Roman 
council.  Pyrrhus,  his  successor,  set  up  in  opposition  to 
the  decision  of  John  IV.  the  letter  of  Honorius,  John's 
predecessor.  John  attempted  an  apology  ;  but  the  let- 
ters of  Sergius  and  Honorius  still  exist  ;  they  prove 
that  John's  defence  was  untenable ;  that  Honorius  had 
perfectly  imderstood  Sergius  ;  that  he  had  answered 
him,  agreeing  with  the  letter  he  had  received  fi'om  him  ; 
that  both  rejected  in  a  general  way  the  two  distinct 
loills  and  operations.     It  was  with  justice,  then,  that 


240  THE  PAPACY. 

Honorius  was  condemned  as  a  heretic  by  the  sixth  cecu- 
menical  council,  as  we  shall  shortly  see. 

After  the  publication  of  the  "na^fifftg  of  Heraclius,  the 
discussions  upon  the  two  operations  and  two  wills  as- 
sumed greater  proportions.  The  whole  East  was  filled 
with  them.  Many  bishops  declared  against  the  new 
doctrine,  and  appealed  to  the  West,  in  the  person  of  the 
Bishop  of  Rome,  to  sustain  the  Catholic  faith.  Pyr- 
rhus,  having  abandoned  his  see,  was  succeeded  by  Paul, 
who  wrote  letters  of  communion  to  Theodore,  then 
Bishop  of  Rome.  Theodore  replied,  praising  the  ortho- 
doxy of  Paul's  faith,  but  expressing  surprise  that  he  had 
not  condemned  the  'Y^Kdeats  of  Heraclius.  Yet  he  himself 
did  not  dare  to  censure  that  document  openly  ;  he 
ought,  therefore,  to  have  imderstood  why  Paul,  who 
was  then  at  Constantinople,  had  not  solemnly  condemn- 
ed it.  In  his  answer,  Theodore  urged  that  Pyrrhus, 
Paul's  predecessor,  must  be  canonically  deposed,  or  be 
sent  to  Rome  to  be  judged.  This  opinion  was  not  fol- 
lowed. But  Pyrrhus  himself,  having  been  proved  to  be 
in  errour  by  the  monk  Maximus  of  Constantinople,  asked 
to  go  to  Rome,  where  he  was  received  with  all  honours 
due  to  his  title  of  ex-Patriarch,  by  Theodore,  to  whom 
he  intrusted  a  perfectly  orthodox  confession  of  faith. 

Rome  took  advantage  of  the  occasions  offered  by 
Monothelism  to  enlarge  her  authority.  The  two  Patri- 
archs of  Constantinople  and  Alexandria  having  declared 
in  favour  of  the  new  doctrine,  all  those  who  were  ortho- 
dox.in  the  East  had  occasion  to  turn  to  the  Patriarch  of 
Rome  and  write  to  him  as  the"  bulwark  of  the  faith  which 
was  threatened  throughout  the  East.  At  such  a  time  the 
title  of  successor  of  St.  Peter  was  not  withheld  from 
him,  and  some  bishops  went  so  far  as  to  trace  back  to 
that  Apostle  the  authority  of  the  Roman  see.  This  flat- 
tered the  tendencies  which  were  destined  to  be  daily 
more  and  more  developed  at  Rome. 


THE  PAPACY.  241 

Some  Popes,  particularly  St.  Leo,  had  made  alto- 
gether too  much  of  the  prerogatives  of  the  Apostle 
Peter,  and  possibly  with  a  purpose.  St.  Gregory  the 
Great,  indeed,  came  in  to  determine  the  orthodox  sense 
of  the  expressions  of  his  predecessors ;  but  it  is  certain 
that  beginning  with  St.  Leo,  the  Bishops  of  Rome  icere 
tending  to  exaggerate  the  prerogatives  of  the  first  of 
the  Apostles,  in  order  to  appropriate  them  by  right  of 
succession.  As  the  small  patriarchate  of  Jerusalem  was 
under  the  authority  of  St.  Sophronius,  the  most  illus- 
trious defender  of  orthodoxy  in  the  East,  the  Pope 
thought  he  might  properly  have  himself  represented 
there.  He  chose  for  his  legate  Stephen  of  Dora,  who 
had  been  se^U  to  Rome  by  Sophronius  himself  to  en- 
lighten Honorius.  This  was  a  step  unheard  of  before 
in  the  East,  and  therefore  it  should  not  pass  unnoticed  ; 
it  sustains  our  allegation  that  the  Popes  intended  to 
profit  by  every  circumstance  in  order  to  increase  their 
authority,  the  more  as  it  was  threatened  by  the  Bishops 
of  Constantinople.  The  two  highest  Patriarchs  of  the 
East  had  fallen  into  heresy,  and  now  or  never  should 
Rome  speak  out.  The  Popes  did  not  let  the  oppor- 
tunity go  by.  Nevertheless,  the  authentic  documents 
concerning  the  question  of  Monothelism  agree  in  proving 
that  all  the  Patriarchs  discussed  the  dogmatic  questions 
among  themselves  on  a  footing  of  equality.  Many  bish- 
ops having  declared  against  Paul  of  Constantinople,  he 
gave  explanations  that  might  be  intei*preted  either  way, 
and  which  satisfied  no  one.  But  as  he  was  continually 
found  fault  with  for  his  silence  respecting  the  "Ett^eatj ,  he 
prevailed  upon  the  Emperor  Constans  to  publish  a  new 
edict,  which  received  the  name  of  Type.  By  this  edict 
the  "Y.Kdeais  was  withdrawn,  and  both  parties  were  si- 
lenced. 

This  was  precisely  what  Honorius  had  formerly  aske4 
in  the  letter  in  which  he  declared  in  favour  of  Monothel- 


242  'THE   PAPACY. 

ism.  But  Theodore  was  no  longer  satisfied  with  this. 
He  assembled  a  council  of  Italian  bishops,  and  there  de- 
posed Paul  of  Constantinople,  and  Pyrrhus,  who  had  re- 
lapsed into  Monothelism  after  he  left  Konie.  He  dared 
to  sign  this  anti-canonical  sentence  with  a  pen  dipped 
in  the  consecrated  wine.  Such  impiety  niight  satisfy 
the  rancour  of  Rome,  but  it  could  only  have  calamitous 
results.  Paul  continued  to  consider  himself  legitimate 
Bishop  of  Constantinople,  and  replied  to  the  violence  of 
the  Bishop  of  Rome  with  corresponding  violence.  He 
caused  to  be  overthrown  the  Roman  altar  of  the  palace 
of  Placidia,  where  the  two  envoys  of  the  Roman  Bishop 
resided,  and  forbade  them  to  celebrate  the  holy  myste- 
ries. This  was  to  declare  them  and  their  bishop  excom- 
municate. 

They  returned  to  Rome,  and  one  of  them,  Martin, 
was  elected  to  succeed  Theodore,  who  died  soon  after 
throwing  this  new  element  of  discord  into  the  Church  by 
his  sentence,  (649.)  Martin  was  no  sooner  consecrated, 
than  he  assembled  at  Rome  a-numerous  council  of  bish- 
ops from  the  environs  of  Rome,  from  the  Exarchate  of 
Ravenna,  from  Sicily,  and  from  Sardinia.  Some  African 
bishops,  Stephen  of  Dora,  and  some  Greek  monks,  refu- 
gees in  Rome,  were  present.  The  question  of  the  two 
wills  and  two  operations  was  examined,  the  'E/c^ea^j,  the 
Type  and  their  defenders  were  condemned.  Martin 
signed  the  acts  of  the  council  as  follows  :  "  Martin,  by 
the  grace  of  God,  Bishop  of  the  holy  catholic  and  apos- 
tolic Church  of  the  city  of  Rome.  I  have  signed  as 
judge  this  sentence  in  confirmation  of  the  orthodox 
faith,  and  also  the  condemnation  of  Theodore,  formerly 
Bishop  of  Pharan,  of  Cyrus  of  Alexandria,  of  Sergius 
of  Constantinople,  of  Pyrrhus  and  Paul  his  successors, 
and  of  their  heretical  writings,  of  the  impious  "'E.KdEOi.g 
and  the  impious  Type^  published  by  them." 

All  the  bishops,  one  hundred  and  five  in  number,  em- 


THE   PAPACY.  243 

ployed  the  same  formula  in  signing.  They  concurred  in 
the  condemnation,  as  judges,  as  well  as  the  Bishop  of 
Rome,  who  merely  had  the  first  place  in  the  council. 

Martin  sent  the  transactions  of  the  Council  of  Rome 
to  the  East,  and  named  John,  Bishop  of  Philadelphia, 
his  vicar  for  tlie  entire  East,  condemning  as  heretics  the 
Patriarchs  of  Antioch  and  Alexandria  as  well  as  the  Pa- 
triarch of  Constantinople.  Martin  declared  in  the  com- 
mission given  to  John  of  Philadelphia,  that  he  gave  it 
to  him  "  by  virtue  of  the  power  that  he  had  received 
from  St.  Peter,"  and  because  of  the  unhappy  condition 
of  the  East  now  ravaged  by  Mussulmans. 

It  was  thus  that  the  Bishop  of  Rome  availed  himself 
of  the  misfortunes  of  the  East  to  seize  upon  universal 
power  in  the  Church  by  virtue  of  an  alleged  succession 
from  St.  Peter.  These  formulas  became  more  and  more 
the  fashion  at  Rome  after  the  middle  of  the  seventh 
century,  and  Martin  particularly  contributed  to  cany 
them  out.  He  claimed  authority  such  as  his  predeces- 
sors never  enjoyed.  Thus,  being  dissatisfied  with  the 
letter  of  communion  he  had  received  from  Paul,  the  new 
Bishop  of  Thessalonica,  he  dictated  the  formula  he 
should  accept.  Paul  refusing  to  comply,  Martin  an- 
nounced to  him  without  the  form  of  a  trial  that  he  was 
deposed  from  his  see.  He  was  the  more  inclined  to 
make  this  bishop  feel  his  power,  because  his  province 
had  been  submitted  to  the  jurisdiction  of  Constanti- 
nople in  spite  of  Rome. 

The  patriarchal  churches  of  Alexandria,  Antioch,  and 
Jerusalem  had  enough  to  do  to  defend  themselves 
against  the  ferocious  conquerors  of  the  East ;  they, 
therefore,  took  no  notice  of  the  encroachments  of  Rome, 
nor  the  acts  of  her  vicar.  They  only  protested  by  their 
silence  and  by  ceasing  to  keep  up  any  relations  with 
the  Roman  see.  For  them,  Constantinople  became  the 
first  see  of  the  Church,  and  they  remained  in  communion 


244  '^SE  PAPACY. 

with  it.    The  only  contest  was  now  between  the  Bish- 
ops of  Rome  and  Constantinople. 

By  the  Council  of  Rome,  Martin  had  obviously  de- 
Bired  to  pay  back  the  last  Council  of  Constantinople^  in 
which  his  predecessor,  Vigilius,  had  been,  as  he  himself 
confessed,  convicted  of  errour.  But  he  had  not  imi- 
tated the  prudence  of  this  council,  which,  while  it  con- 
demned the  errours  of  Vigilius,  had  not  sought  to  de- 
pose him,  and  thus  violate  the  rights  of  the  bishops 
of  the  Roman  province.  Moreover,  Martin  attacked 
the  Emperor  himself  in  condemning  The  Type,  which 
had  been  promulgated  as  a  law  of  the  state.  He  had, 
indeed,  endeavoured  to  ascribe  that  document  to  the 
Bishop  of  Constantinople,  and  had  written  to  the  Em- 
peror to  persuade  him  that  he  was  not  personally  con- 
cerned in  the  decision.  But  these  precautions  only 
irritated  Constans,  who  had  Martin  ousted  from  Rome. 
He  accused  him  not  only  of  heresy,  but  of  rebellion  and 
high  treason.  One  Eugene  was  substituted  for  Martin 
in  the  episcopate  of  Rome.  Martin,  speaking  of  his  de- 
position, says  in  one  of  his  letters  :  *  "It  has  never  been 
practised  in  this  manner ;  for,  in  the  absence  of  the 
bishop,  he  is  replaced  by  the  archdeacon,  the  arch- 
priest,  and  the  dean." 

He  never  dreamed  of  appealing  to  any  exclusive  priv- 
ilege in  favour  of  the  Bishops  of  Rome,  and  acknow- 
ledged that  they  were  subject  to  the  common  law. 

The  anti-canonical  deposition  of  Martin  answered  to 
that  which  he  had  himself  pronounced,  as  uncanonically 
against  Paul  of  Constantinople.  It  may  be  safely  said 
that  if  Martin  had  had,  like  Paul,  the  imperial  power  at 
his  disposal,  he  would  have  treated  his  antagonist  as  he 
himself  was  treated. 

The  letters  of  the  Roman  bishops  to  the  emperors 
will  satisfy  any  one  that  it  was  a  matter  of  tradition 

*  Mart.  Eplst.  ad  Theod. 


THE   PAPACY.  245 

among  them  to  ask  for  violent  measures  against  all 
whom  they  considered  heretics ;  and  we  know  how 
faithful  they  were  to  these  traditions  when  they  had  in 
their  own  hands  both  the  spiritual  and  the  temporal 
power. 

From  a  purely  ecclesiastical  point  of  view,  it  was 
natural  that  the  first  encroachments  of  the  Papacy 
should  excite  a  powerful  reaction.  Martin,  coming  to 
Constantinople,  (654,)  was  treated  as  a  prisoner  of  state ; 
insults  were  heaped  upon  him,  and  he  was  shamefully 
maltreated.  The  Bishop  of  Constantinople,  who  was 
ill,  disapproved  of  such  violence,  and  besought  the  Em- 
peror not  to  treat  a  bishop  thus.  He  died  soon  after 
expressing  these  kindly  sentiments.  Martin  was  ban- 
ished to  Cherson.  Thence  he  wrote  several  letters.  He 
complains  that  the  Roman  Church  sent  him  no  aid  ;  and 
in  one  of  his  letters  he  thus  expresses  himself  in  regard 
to  the  Roman  clergy  and  of  the  successor  who  had  been 
appointed  to  his  place  :*  "  I  am  amazed  at  those  who 
belong  to  the  Church  of  St.  Peter,  because  of  the  little 
care  they  have  of  one  who  is  of  them.  If  that  Church 
have  no  money,  she  lacks,  thank  God,  neither  grain,  nor 
wine,  nor  other  provisions  that  she  could  send  to  my 
aid.  .  .  .  Have  I  been  such  an  enemy  to  the  Church, 
and  particularly  to  them  ?  I  pray  God  nevertheless,  by 
the  intercession  of  St.  Peter,  to  preserve  them  unshaken 
in  the  orthodox  faith,  and  chiefly  the  pastor  who  now 
governs  them."  Thus  Martin  regarded  Eugene,  who 
had  been  put  in  his  place,  and'  whose  promotion  had 
been  approved  by  the  Roman  clergy,  as  the  legitimate 
Bishop  of  Rome.  It  must  be  acknowledged  that  his  let- 
ter is  not  very  favourable  to  the  pretensions  of  the  mod- 
ern Papacy,  and  is  a  more  than  sufficient  answer  to  what 
he  himself  said  of  his  universal  power  inherited  from  St. 
Peter.     He  died  about  a  year  after  writing  this  letter. 

•  Mart.  Eplst.  xvlii.  Labbe'a  Collection. 


246  THE  PAPACY. 

Pyrrhus,  the  former  Bishop  of  Constantinople,  was 
the  same  year  reinstalled  in  that  see  ;  but  he  only  sur- 
vived his  restoration  a  few  months,  and  was  succeeded 
by  Peter.  Eugene,  Bishop  of  Rome,  was  succeeded  by 
Vitalianus,  in  658.  Constans,  going  to  Rome  under 
his  episcopate,  was  received  by  him  with  great  honours, 
and  communicated  with  him,  although  this  Emperor 
liad  never  revoked  his  Type,  and  had  persecuted  Pope 
Martin  and  the  monk  Maximus,  who  was  regarded  in 
the  East  as  the  great  defender  of  orthodoxy.  During 
the  episcopate  of  Vitalianus — fourteen  years — no  differ- 
ences existed  between  the  sees  of  Rome  and  Constanti- 
nople. In  664  Constans  died,  and  Constantine  Pogon- 
atus  ascended  the  imperial  throne.  In  674  Vitalianus  was 
replaced  by  Adeodatus,  who  was  succeeded  by  Donus. 
He  died  in  679,  and  Agatho  was  elected  to  the  see  of 
Rome.  Peter  of  Constantinople  had  been  succeeded  by 
Constantine,  who  gave  place,  in  678,  to  Theodore. 
This  Patriarch,  full  of  pacific  intentions,  had  sent  to 
Donus  a  letter  exhorting  him  to  peace.  But  the  Bishop 
of  Rome  did  not  reply,  imitating  his  predecessors,  who 
had  given  no  answer  to  the  synodical  letters  of  the  later 
bishops  of  Constantinople.  This  schism  grieved  the 
Emperor,  who  determined  to  reestablish  friendly  rela- 
tions between  the  Eastern  and  Western  churches.  He 
therefore  inquired  of  Theodore  and  of  Macarius  of  Anti- 
och  as  to  the  cause  of  the  division.*  They  replied: 
"There  have  been  introduced  new  modes  of  speaking 
of  the  mysteries,  either  through  ignorance  or  from  ex- 
cessive curiosity  ;  and  never,  since  these  questions  have 
been  under  discussion,  have  the  two  sees  assembled 
to  search  out  the  truth."  The  Emperor  concluded 
that  the  remedy  for  these  divisions  was  a  council,  and 
consequently  wrote  thus  to  Donus  :  "  Circumstances  do 
not  allow  the  assembling  of  a  complete  council ;  but 

•  V.  Theoph.  Eccl.  Hist,  and  vol.  vL  of  Labbe's  Collection. 


THE   PAPACY.  247 

you  may  send  discreet  and  learned  men,  who,  with  the 
Patriarchs  Tiieodore  and  Macarius  shall  solve  these  ques- 
tions. They  shall  enjoy  complete  security  here,  and 
even  for  their  return,  in  case  they  do  not  come  to  an  un- 
derstanding. After  this  we  shall  be  justified  in  the 
sight  of  God ;  for  while  we  can  exhort  to  union,  we  are 
unwilling  to  compel  any  one.  Send  us  from  your  holy 
Church  three  men  at  most,  if  you  will,  and  from  your 
council  (that  is,  of  his  ecclesiastical  province,)  about 
twelve  bishops,  including  the  metropolitans,"  Be- 
side this,  the  Emperor  offered  every  assistance  and 
safeguard  to  the  deputies  for  their  journey.  Donus 
was  dead  wh^n  the  impei'ial  missive  reached  Rome, 
(079.)  It  was  given  to  Agatho,  who  convoked  at  Rome 
a  large  council,  to  choose  the  delegates  that  should  be 
sent  to  Constantinople.  All  the  provinces  of  Italy  took 
part  in  that  assembly,  in  which  wei*e  also  several  bish- 
ops from  France.  Agatho  did  not,  then,  it  should  seem, 
claim  for  himself  the  right  to  send  delegates  by  his 
own  authority  to  Constantinople.  The  council  sent  the 
Emperor  a  letter,  signed  by  the  Pope  and  all  the  mem- 
bers of  the  assemblJ^  Agatho  addressed  him  another 
in  his  own  name.  The  delegates  were  well  received 
at  Constantinople  by  the  Emperor.  Theodore  was  no 
longer  Patriarch  ;  George  had  succeeded  him.  He  and 
Macarius  of  Antioch  assembled  the  metropolitans  and 
the  bishops  depending  from  their  sees.  The  churches 
of  Alexandria  and  Jerusalem  were  represented  there. 
All  united  with  the  Western  delegates  to  form  what  is 
known  as  the  sixth  oecumenical  council. 

The  first  session  took  place  on  the  seventh  of  Novem- 
ber, A.D.  680.  The  Emperor  occupied  the  first  place,  in 
the  middle  ;  on  his  left  were  the  delegates  from  Rome 
and  Jerusalem  ;  on  his  right,  the  Patriarchs  of  Constan- 
tinople and  of  Antioch,  and  the  delegate  from  Alexan- 
dria;  next,  oil  each  side,  quite  a  great  number  of  me- 


248  THF   PAPACY. 

tropolitans  and  bishops.  During  several  sessions  the 
Emperor  caused  the  acts  of  the  Councils  of  Ephesus  and 
Chalcedon  to  be  read,  together  with  all  the  texts  cited 
for  or  against  the  two  wills  aod  two  operations  in  Christ. 
The  question  being  discussed,  all  agreed,  except  the 
Patriarch  of  Antioch  and  his  disciple  Stephen,  in  con- 
demning Monothelism  and  all  those  who  had  supported 
it,  including  Honorius,  Pope  of  Rome.  This  important 
decree,  which  so  loudly  refutes  the  pretensions  of  the 
modern  Papacy,  deserves  to  be  quoted  verbally.* 

"  Having  examined  the  pretended  dogmatical  letters 
of  Sergius  of  Constantinople  to  Cyrus,  and  the  replies 
of  Honorius  to  Sergius,  and  finding  them  opposed  to 
the  doctrine  of  the  Apostles,  to  the  decrees  of  the  coun- 
cils, and  to  the  sense  of  all  the  Fathers,  but  agreeable, 
on  the  contrary,  to  the  false  doctrines  of  the  heretics, 
we  entirely  reject  them,  and  detest  them  as  calculated 
to  corrupt  souls.  And  while  we  reject  their  impious 
dogmas,  we  also  think  that  their  names  should  be  ban- 
ished from  the  Church — namely,  of  Sergius,  formerly 
Bishop  of  this  city  of  Constantinople,  who  first  wrote 
upon  this  errour  ;  of  Cyrus  of  Alexandria  ;  of  Pyrrhus, 
Paul,  and  Peter,  Bishops  of  Constantinople ;  of  Theo- 
dore, Bishop  of  Pharan  ;  all  of  whom  Pope  Agatho  men- 
tions in  his  letter  to  the  Emperor,  and  hath  rejected. 
We  pronounce  anathema  against  them  all.  With  them 
we  think  we  should  expel  from  the  Church,  and  pro- 
nounce anathema  against  Honorius,  formerly  Bishop  of 
Old  Rome.  We  find  in  his  letter  to  Sergius  that  he  fol- 
lows, in  every  respect,  and  authorizes  his  impious  doc- 
trine." 

In  the  sixteenth  session,  after  the  profession  of  faith 
of  the  Patriarch  George  of  Constantinople,  the  council 
rung  with  acclamations,  and  among  others,  with  the  fol- 
lowing :  "  Anathema  to  Theodore  of  Pharan,  to  Sergius, 

*  Cone.  Constant,  sesa.  xiU.  In  Labbe's  Collection. 


THE   PAPACY.  249 

to  Cyrus !  Anathema  to  Honorius  the  Heretic  !" 
In  the  profession  of  faith  of  the  council,  read  in  the  last 
session,  Honorius  is  condemned  with  the  other  heretics  ; 
anathema  is  again  pronounced  against  him  as  well  as 
against  the  other  Monothelites. 

The  council  enacted  many  canons.  The  thirty-sixth 
renewed  those  of  Constantinople  and  Chalcedon  touch- 
ins  the  rank  of  the  Patriarchs  in  the  Church.  It  is  thus 
worded :  "  Renewing  the  decrees  of  the  hundred  and 
fifty  holy  Fathers  assembled  in  this  royal  city,  blessed 
of  God,  and  of  the  six  hundred  and  thirty  assembled  at 
Chalcedon,  we  decree  that  the  see  of  Constantinople 
shall  enjoy  the  same  prerogatives  as  that  of  Old  Rome — 
that  it  shall  be  as  great  in  ecclesiastical  matters,  being 
the  second  after  it.  After  these  shall  be  the  sees  of 
Alexandria,  Antioch,  and  then  that  of  the  city  of  Jeru- 
salem." Thus  did  the  council  answer  the  pretensions 
of  Rome.  The  legates  of  Agatho  and  one  hundred  and 
sixty  bishops  subscribed  to  the  acts  of  the  council. 
Five  copies  were  made  of  them,  Avhich  were  signed  by 
the  Emperor's  hand — one  for  each  of  the  five  Patriarchal 
churches.  Fifty-five  bishops,  and  the  delegates  of  the 
Oriental  churches,  addressed  a  letter  to  Agatho,  re- 
questing him  to  concur  in  what  had  been  done. 

Those  who  had  been  condemned  by  the  council — six 
in  number — hoping,  without  doubt,  to  prevail  on  the 
West  not  to  concur  in  these  acts,  asked  to  be  sent  to 
the  Pope.  The  Emperor  granted  this,  and  banished 
them  to  Rome. 

Meanwhile,  (682,)  Agatho  having  died,  Leo  II.  was 
elected  Bishop  of  Rome.  It  was  he  that  received  the 
legates  and  the  transactions  of  the  council.  Tke  Em- 
peror  wrote  two  letters — one  to  the  Pope,  the  other  to 
the  members  of  the  Western  covnclls — in  reply  to  those 
he  had  received.  Leo  II.  solemnly  concurred  in  the  acts 
of  the  council,  by  his  letter  to  the  Emperor,  of  May 


250  I'SE  PAPACY. 

seventh,  a.d.  683.  Among  other  passages,  we  read: 
"  We  anathematize  the  inventors  of  the  new  errour,  to 
wit,  Theodore  of  Pharan,  Cyrus  of  Alexandria,  Sergius, 
Pyrrhus  Paul  and  Peter  of  Constantinople,  and  also 
Honorius^  who,  instead  of  purifying  this  Apostolic 
Church  by  the  doctrine  of  the  Apostles,  has  come  near 
to  overthrowing  the  faith  by  an  impious  treason.'''' 

Nothing  is  wanting,  as  we  see,  to  the  condemnation 
of  Pope  Honorius  as  an  heretic ;  yet  this  has  not  pre- 
vented Romish  theologians  from  saying  he  was  not 
80  condemned.  They  have  written  long  disquisitions 
upon  this  subject,  in  which  they  have  distorted  all  the 
facts.  The  acts  which  we  have  quoted  are  clear  enough 
of  themselves  to  prove,  to  any  honest  man,  that  the 
sixth  oecumenical  council  did  not  believe  in  the  doc- 
trinal authority  of  the  Bishops  of  Rome ;  that  those 
bishops  themselves  did  not  believe  themselves  possessed 
of  any  such  authority. 

Is  it  not  incredible  that  the  Romish  theologians 
should  have  dared  to  cite  this  council  in  favour  of  their 
system  ?  Among  their  acclamations  the  Fathers  said, 
"  Peter  has  spoken  by  Agatho  ;"  "  therefore,"  say  the 
Romanists, "  they  recognized  the  same  doctrinal  author- 
ity in  Agatho  as  in  Peter."  They  will  not  reflect  that 
this  acclamation  was  made  after  the  examination  of 
Agatho's  letter,  when  it  appeared  to  be  in  conformity 
with  Apostolic  doctrine.  The  council  «/?/)rouec?  of  Aga- 
tho's letter  as  it  condemned  that  of  Honorius,  his  pre- 
decessor. It  was  therefore  the  council  that  possessed 
doctrinal  authority  ;  and  no  more  of  it  was  recognized 
in  the  see  of  Rome  than  in  other  Apostolic  sees. 

The  doctrine  of  one  Pope  was  esteemed  to  be  that  of 
Peter,  because  seen  to  be  Apostolic  ;  that  of  another 
Pope  was  condemned  as  contrary  to  Peter's  teaching, 
because  it  differed  from  Apostolic  tradition.  This  fact 
stands  out  so   prominently  in  the  Acts  of  tlie  Sixth 


THE  PAPACY.  251 

Council,  that  it  is  difficult  to  understand  how  men  who 
claim  to  be  in  earnest  have  ever  contested  it. 

Under  the  reign  of  Justinian  II.  there  assembled  at 
Constantinople  two  hundred  and  eleven  bishops,  of 
whom  the  four  Patriarchs  of  Constantinople,  Alex- 
andria, Antioch,  and  Jerusalem  were  the  chief.  * 
This  assembly  is  known  under  the  title  of  the  Council 
in  Tndlo^  because  it  was  assembled  under  the  TruUus 
or  dome  of  the  imperial  palace.  Its  object  was  to  add 
to  the  acts  of  the  fifth  and  sixth  oecumenical  councils, 
which  had  not  made  any  disciijlinary  rules.  Church 
discipline  was  alone  discussed.  Customs  widely  difier- 
ent  already  prevailed  in  the  Eastern  and  Western 
churches,  particularly  in  regard  to  the  marriage  of 
priests.  The  Roman  Church  even  then  was  drifting  to- 
ward ecclesiastical  celibacy  as  a  general  law.  The  East- 
ern Church,  on  the  contrary,  solemnly  proclaimed  the 
ancient  law  respecting  marriage  of  priests,  deacons, 
and  sub-deacons.  Rome,  therefore,  refused  to  receive 
the  laws  of  the  Council  in  Trullo.  This  embittered  the 
antagonism  already  existing  between  Rome  and  Con- 
stantinople. In  thus  disavowing  ancient  discipline,  and 
refusing  to  subscribe  to  canons,  which  were  its  exact 
expression,  she  was  laying  the  groundwork  of  that  wall 
of  separation  which  was  so  soon  to  be  raised  between 
the  two  churches.  It  was  Pope  Sergius  (692)  who  re- 
fused to  admit  the  canons  of  the  Council  in  Trullo.  He 
particularly  relied  upon  this,  that  the  council  prescribed 
to  the  Roman  Church,  to  change  her  practice  regarding 
the  Saturday  fiist,  a  practice  that  she  had  followed  from 
time  immemorial.  Some  zealous  Romans,  like  the  priest 
Blastus,  had  tried  as  early  as  the  fifth  century  to  impose 
the  Roman  custom  upon  the  whole  Church ;  at  the  close 
of  the  seventh  century  the  East  undertook  to  impose 
hers  upon  Rome.     It  must  be  granted  that  a  council  of 

♦  See  the  transactions  of  this  council  In  Labbe's  CollecUon,  voL  vi. 


252  THE  PAPACY. 

two  hundred  and  eleven  bishops  had  more  authority 
than  Blastus  and  his  followers ;  but  it  was  a  matter  of 
mere  discipline,  and  the  Eastern  usage  should  not  have 
been  imposed  upon  the  Western  Church,  but  submitted 
to  the  judgment  of  the  bishops  of  that  Church.  We  may- 
believe  that  the  Eastern  Church  assembled  in  Trullo 
meant,  by  several  of  her  canons,  to  remind  the  Roman 
Church  how  far  she  had  removed  from  the  primitive 
discipline,  and  that  the  Roman  Church  would  not  accept 
that  lesson,  chiefly  because  it  came  from  Constanti- 
nople. 

Official  relations  were  not  interrupted  between  the 
two  churches  ;  but  for  a  long  time  they  had  been  far 
from  fraternal.  The  opposition  of  Rome  to  the  Council 
in  Trullo  did  not  prevent  her  intercommunion  with 
Constantinople  ;  but  these  relations  were  feebly  kept 
up  until  the  discussion  regarding  images  arose  in  726. 

The  Emperor  Leo  the  Isaurian  *  declared  himself  the 
enemy  of  that '"''  cxdtus''''  which  was  addressed  to  images, 
alleging  that  it  was  idolatrous.  This  idea  does  not 
speak  very  well  for  his  judgment  ;f  but  he  had  the 
power,  and  many  bishops  took  sides  with  him.J 

Constantinople  at  that  time  possessed  a  great  and 
holy  Patriarch,  Germauus,  who  energetically  opposed  the 
Emperor's  errours.  He  wrote  concerning  them  to  sev- 
eral bishops,  and  particularly  to  Gregory  EL,  then  Bishop 
of  Rome,  who  answered,  assuring  him  that  he  was  of 
his  opinion. 

The  Emperor  resorted  to  every  expedient  to  corrupt 

•  Leo  III. 

t  The  Editor  reminds  the  reader  that  the  Abbd  Guett^e  Is  not  a  Protestant,  and 
that  the  value  of  his  work  is  the  greater  as  the  testimony  of  one  who  has  no  Pro- 
testant objections  to  Romish  errours.  The  veneration  of  Icons  or  pictures  (not 
images)  in  the  Greek  Church,  is  a  gross  abuse,  and  needs  to  be  reformed  practi- 
cally ;  but  the  Uomish  education  of  the  Abb6  leads  him,  perhaps,  to  be  less  sensi- 
tive on  this  subject  than  many  of  the  Russo-Greeks.  The  Catechism  of  Platon, 
Metropolitan  of  Moscow,  exhibits  a  genuine  dread  of  the  peril  of  Idolatry  which 
even  his  own  dogma  involves. — [En.] 

\  See  EccL  Hist,  of  Theoph.  and  Niceph.,  and  Labbe's  Collection  of  the  Council*. 


THE  PAPACY.  253 

Germanus.  Failing  in  this,  he  persecuted  him.  Germanus 
preferred  to  resign  his  office  rather  than  concur  in  the 
Emperor's  decree  against  images.  He  retired  to  his 
father's  house,  where  he  lived  like  a  monk  and  died  like 
a  saint.  Anastasius,  his  assistant,  was  put  in  his  place 
by  the  Emperor.  He  was  an  ambitious  man,  who  had 
sold  his  faith  to  the  Emperor  for  the  Patriarchal  see. 
Leo  also  endeavoured  to  corrupt  Gregory  H. ;  but  his 
promises  and  threats  had  no  other  effect  than  to  raise 
against  him  in  rebellion  all  those  who  still  recognized 
the  imperial  authority  in  the  West. 

Anastasius  sent  a  letter  of  communion  to  the  Pope, 
who  refused  to  recognize  him,  and  even  threatened  his 
deposition  if  he  should  continue  to  maintain  heresy. 
Meanwhile  Gregory  H.  died,  (731,)  and  was  succeeded 
by  Gregory  IH.  This  Pope  wrote  to  the  Emperor  sev- 
eral letters  full  of  excellent  doctrine  and  the  most  val- 
uable information.*  Thus,  in  the  first,  he  says  to  the 
Emperor  :  "  The  decisions  of  the  Church  belong  not  to 
emperors  but  to  the  bishops ;  accordingly,  as  these  do 
uot  meddle  in  civil  affairs,  so  likewise  should  the  emperors 
not  busy  themselves  with  ecclesiastical  matters.  If  the 
emperors  and  the  bishops  agree,  then  they  form  in  com- 
mon a  single  power  to  treat  of  affairs  in  the  spirit  of 
peace  and  charity." 

Leo  proposing  a  council,  Gregory  told  him  that  such 
an  assembly  was  not  needed,  since  it  was  only  neces- 
sary for  himself  to  return  to  order,  that  peace  might  be 
universal  respecting  the  question  at  issue.  "  You  think 
to  frighten  us,"  he  said,  "  by  saying,  '  I  will  send  to 
Rome  and  break  the  image  of  St.  Peter,  and  will  carry 
off  Pope  Gregory  loaded  Avith  chains.  I  will  treat  him 
as  Constans  treated  Martin.'  Know,  then,  that  the 
Popes  are  mediators  and  arbiters  of  peace  between  the 
East  and  the  West.     We  do  not,  therefore,  fear  your 

*  Letters  of  Greg.  IIL  in  Labbe'a  Collection. 


254  THE  PAPACY. 

threats  ;  at  one  league  from  Rome  we  shall  be  in 
safety." 

These  words  depict  exactly  the  position  which  the 
Bishops  of  Rome  had  taken  in  the  midst  of  all  the  na- 
tions who  had  dismembered  the  Roman  empire  in  the 
West  —  a  position  that  became  one  of  the  elements  of 
their  power.  As  to  any  pretensions  to  any  sort  of  po^ 
litical  authority,  or  the  supreme  authority  in  the  Church, 
no  trace  of  either  can  be  found  in  the  letters  of  Gregory 
III.  He  saw  this  authority  only  ^«  the  bishops;  that 
is,  he  only  saw  a  collective  authority  in  the  Church. 
The  Emperor  replying  that  he  possessed  both  imperial 
and  sacerdotal  power,  Gregory  wrote  him  an  admirable 
letter  upon  the  distinction  of  the  two  powers,  still 
placing  the  ecclesiastical  authority  in  the  episcopate. 
Agreeably  to  his  principles,  Gregory  III.  called  a  coun- 
cil at  Rome  to  give  a  collective  decision  concerning  im- 
ages. He  sent  that  decision  to  the  Emperor  and  to 
Anastasius  of  Constantinople,  with  private  letters  to 
lead  them  back  to  the  right  way.  His  efforts  only  served 
to  redouble  the  persecutions  against  the  Catholics  of  the 
East.  The  bishops  of  those  countries  could  neither  come 
together  in  con\'Tention  nor  obtain  a  hearinff.  In  their 
Stead  John  Damascene  took  up  the  defence  of  the 
Church.  The  Mohammedan  yoke  gave  the  great  theo- 
logian liberty  boldly  to  attack  the  Emperor  and  those 
who  served  as  his  instruments  to  give  sanction  to  his 
errours  or  execute  his  cruelties. 

The  doctrinal  whims  of  Leo  the  Isaurian  had  a  polit- 
ical result  which  he  was  far  from  foreseeing.  The  West 
renounced  him,  and  Rome,  threatened  by  the  Lombards, 
turned  to  Karl  Martel,  Duke  of  the  Franks,  to  offer  him 
the  Homan  Consulate.  Gregory  III.  made  this  propo- 
sition to  Karl.  This  terrible  warrior  died  then,  and 
Gregory  III.  also.  But  the  idea  remained.  Pepin,  the 
son  of  Karl,  and  Pope  Zachary  renewed  the  negotia- 


THE  PAPACY.  255 

tions.  Zachary  approved  for  Pepin's  benefit  the  depo- 
sition of  the  first  race  of  Frankic  kings.  In  return,  the 
new  king  delivered  Rome  from  the  attacks  of  the  Lom- 
bards, became  its  lord  paramount,  and  gave  it  in  ap- 
panage to  the  Pope.  Thus  the  relations  ceased  between 
the  Popes  and  the  Eastern  emperors,  whom  they  no 
longer  recognized  as  sovereigns.  The  separation  be- 
came complete  when  the  son  of  Pepin,  Karl  the  Great, 
better  known  as  Charlemagne,  was  proclaimed  at  Rome 
Emperor  of  the  West. 

This  political  rupture  made  way  for  the  religious 
schism  between  the  East  and  the  West.  Rome  was 
rising  again  from  her  ruins  at  the  same  moment  that 
Constantinople  was  foiling  into  decay.  The  Popes,  be- 
come more  rich  and  powerful  than  ever,  crowned  with 
the  diadem  of  temporal  power,  could  not  but  meditate 
revenge  for  the  humiliations  to  which  in  their  pride 
they  imagined  they  had  been  subjected. 

While  the  West  was  quite  escaping  him  forever,  Con- 
stantine  Copronymus,  the  son  of  Leo,  assembled  counr 
cils  and  caused  the  condemnation  of  images  in  an  as- 
sembly of  bishops  bereft  of  conscience,  Avho  endeavour- 
ed to  dislionour  the  memory  of  the  Patriarch  St.  Ger- 
manus  and  the  learned  John  Damascene.  Pope  Stephen 
n.  (756)  prevailed  upon  Pepin,  King  of  France,  to  take 
the  cause  of  the  Church  in  hand.  Constantine  Copro- 
nymus had  sent  to  this  prince  an  embassy  which  trou- 
bled the  Pope.  Stephen  feared  lest  politics  should  hin- 
der his  plans,  and  the  Emperor  of  the  East  should  re- 
sume some  influence  in  the  afiairs  of  the  West.  He 
therefore  wrote  thus  to  Pepin  :  *  "  We  earnestly  entreat 
you  to  act  toward  the  Greeks  in  such  manner  that  the 
Catholic  faith  maybe  for  ever  preserved,  that  the  Church 
may  he  delivered  from  their  malice^  and  may  recover  all 
her  patrimony."  The  Church  of  Rome  had  had  consider- 

♦  Steph.  II.  Epist.  In  Cod.  Carol. 


256  THE    PAPACY. 

able  property  in  the  East,  which  had  been  confiscated 
since  the  rupture  between  Rome  and  the  empire.  "  In- 
form us,"  adds  the  Pope,  "  how  you  have  talked  to  the 
envoy,  and  send  us  copies  of  the  letters  you  have  given 
him,  that  we  may  act  in  concert." 

Paul,  who  succeeded  Stephen  11.,  continued  in  the 
same  relations  with  Pepin.  His  letters*  show  that  he 
had  to  struggle  against  the  influences  of  certain  poli- 
ticians, who  were  endeavouring  to  effect  an  agreement 
between  the  King  of  France  and  the  Emperor  of  Con- 
stantinople. The  latter  particularly  depended  upon  the 
Lombards  against  Rome.  The  Popes  were  alarmed  at 
what  might  be  the  results  of  such  an  alliance.  They 
accordingly  strove  to  excite  the  Frankic  kings  against 
the  Greeks  and  Lombards. 

We  have  now  come  to  the  last  years  of  the  eighth 
century.  The  Eastern  empire,  delivered  from  Copro- 
nymus  and  his  son  Leo  IV.,  breathed  again  under  the 
reign  of  Constantine  and  Irene. 

Charlemagne  reigned  in  France,  Adrian  I.  was  Bishop 
of  Rome ;  Tarasius,  a  great  and  saintly  Patriarch,  ruled 
at  Constantinople.  Before  consenting  to  his  election, 
Tarasius  addressed  to  the  court  and  people  of  Constan- 
tinople a  discourse  from  which  we  quote  the  following 
passage  :  "  This  is  what  I  principally  fear,  (in  accepting 
the  episcopate :)  I  see  the  church  divided  in  the  East ; 
we  have  different  languages  among  us,  and  many  agree 
with  the  West,  which  anathematizes  us  daily.  Sepa- 
ration (anathema)  is  a  temble  thing;  it  drives  from 
the  kingdom  of  heaven  and  leads  to  outer  darkness. 
Nothing  is  more  pleasant  to  God  than  union,  which 
makes  us  one  Catholic  Church,  as  we  confess  in  the 
creed,  I  therefore  ask  you,  brethi-en,  that  which  I  be- 
lieve is  also  your  will,  since  you  have  the  fear  of  God : 
I  ask  that  the  Emperor  and  Empress  assemble  an  cecu- 

*  Paul  et  Steph.  IIL  Eplst.  In  Cod.  CaroL 


THE   PAPACY.  257 

menical  council,  in  order  that  we  may  make  but  one 
body  under  a  single  chiefs  who  is  Jesus  Christ.  If  the 
Emperor  and  Empress  grant  me  this  request,  I  submit 
to  their  orders  and  your  votes  ;  if  not,  I  cannot  consent. 
Give  me,  brethren,  what  answer  you  will."* 

All  but  a  few  fanatics  applauded  the  project  of  a 
council,  and  then  Tarasius  consented  to  be  ordained 
and  instituted  bishop.  He  at  once  addressed  his  letters 
of  communion  to  the  churches  of  Rome,  Alexandria,  An- 
tioch,  and  Jerusalem.f  In  these  he  made  as  usual  his 
profession  of  faith,  and  invited  those  churches  to  the 
council  which  the  Emperor  was  about  to  assemble. 
The  Empress-regent  and  her  son  wrote  to  Pope  Adrian 
that  they  had  resolved  to  assemble  an  oecumenical  coun- 
cil ;  they  begged  him  to  come  to  it,  promising  to  re- 
ceive him  with  honours  ;  or  to  send  representatives  if  he 
could  not  personally  accept  their  invitation. 

Adrian's  answer  to  the  Emperor  and  Empress  is  a 
very  important  document,  in  regard  to  the  question  we 
are  examining.  We  find  in  it  a  style  which  the  Bish- 
ops of  Rome  had  not  hitherto  allowed  themselves  to 
adopt  toward  the  emperors. 

Rome,  jealous  of  Constantinople,  was  soon  to  crown 
Charlemagne  Emperor  of  the  West,  and  thus  to  break 
all  political  ties  with  the  East.  The  Pope  enjoyed 
great  temporal  authority  in  that  city  under  the  protec- 
tion of  the  Frankic  kings  ;  he  was  rich,  and  he  was  am- 
bitious to  surround  his  see  with  still  greater  magnifi- 
cence and  splendour.  Adrian  therefore  replied  arro- 
gantly to  the  respectful  letter  he  had  received  from  the 
court  of  Constantinople.  He  insisted  upon  certain  con- 
ditions, as  one  power  dealing  with  another,  and  partic- 
ularly upon  this  point :  that  the  patrimony  of  St.  JPe- 

*  Theoph.  Annal.    Labbe'a  Collection  of  CounclU,  vol.  vlL,  Vlt.  Taras.  ap.  Bol- 
land.  16  Februar. 
t  See  all  the  docomenta  In  Labbe's  Collection  of  the  Councils,  7th  toI. 


258  THE  PAPACY. 

ter  in  the  East^  confiscated  by  the  iconoclastic  emperors, 
must  he  restored  in  toto.  We  will  quote  from  his  letter 
what  he  says  respecting  the  Patriarch  of  Constantinople : 
"  We  are  very  much  surprised  to  see  that  in  your  letter 
you  give  to  Tarasius  the  title  of  oecumenical  Patriarch.. 
The  Patriarch  of  Constantinople  would  not  have  even 
the  second  rank  without  the  consent  of  our  see  ;  if 
he  be  oecumenical^  must  he  not  therefore  have  also  the 
primacy  over  our  church  ?  All  Christians  know  that 
this  is  a  ridiculous  assumption." 

Adrian  sets  before  the  Emperor  the  example  of 
Charles,  King  of  the  Franks.  "  Following  our  advice," 
he  says,  "  and  fulfilling  our  wishes,  he  has  subjected  all 
the  barbarous  nations  of  the  West ;  he  has  given  to  the 
Roman  Church  in  perpetuity  provinces,  citien,  castles, 
and  patrimonies  which  were  withheld  by  the  Lombards, 
and  which  by  right  belong  to  St.  Peter ;  he  does  not 
cease  daily  to  offer  gold  and  silver  for  this  light  and 
sustenance  of  the  poor." 

Here  is  language  quite  new  on  the  part  of  Roman 
bishops,  but  henceforth  destined  to  become  habitual 
with  them.  It  dates  from  785  ;  that  is,  from  the  same 
year  when  Adrian  delivered  to  Ingelramn,  Bishop  of 
Metz,  the  collection  of  the  False  Decretals.*    There  is 

♦  Here  are  Bome  details  regarding  the  FaUe  Decretals : 

It  appears  from  the  acts  of  the  Council  of  Chalcedon  in  451,  that  the  Church  had 
already  a  Codex  Caruynum,  or  collection  of  the  laws  of  the  Church.  Several  of  these 
laws  are  held  to  liave  emanated  from  the  Apostles  themselves.  What  they  had  com- 
menced the  councils  continued,  and,  as  soon  as  the  Church  began  to  enjoy  some 
little  tranquillity,  these  venerable  laws  were  collected  and  formed  the  basis  of  eccle- 
siastical discipline ;  and,  as  they  were  mostly  in  Greek,  they  were  translated  into 
Latin  for  the  use  of  the  Western  churches. 

At  the  beginning  of  the  sixth  century  Dlonysius,  sumamed  Exiguus,  a  monk  at 
Rome,  finding  this  translation  Incorrect,  made  another  at  the  request  o.  Julian,  cu- 
rate of  St.  Anastasia  at  Rome,  and  a  disciple  of  Pope  Gelasius.  Dlonysius  collected, 
besides,  whatever  letters  of  the  Popes  he  could  discover  In  the  archives,  and  pub- 
lished In  his  collection  those  of  Sirlcius,  Innocent,  Zosimus,  Boniface,  Celestine,  Leo, 
Gelasius,  and  Anastaslus,  under  which  last  he  lived.  The  archives  of  Rome  at  that 
time  possessed  nothing  prior  to  Sirlcius— that  is,  to  the  end  of  the  fourth  century. 

At  the  beginning  of  the  seventh  century,  Isidore  of  Seville  undertook  to  complete 


THE  PAPACY.  259 

Bomething  highly  significant  in  thia  coincidence.  Was 
it  Adrian  himself  who  authorized  this  work  of  forgery  ? 

the  collection  or  Dionyslus.  He  added  the  canons  of  some  national  or  provincial 
councils  of  Africa,  Spain,  and  France,  and  some  letters  of  a  few  of  the  Popes,  going 
back  no  further  than  to  Damasus,  who  died  in  8S1,  and  was  the  predecessor  of  Siri- 
cius.  This  collection  of  Isidore  of  Seville  begins  with  the  canons  of  the  Council  of 
Nlcea.     He  used  the  old  translation,  and  not  that  of  Dlonysius  for  the  Greek  canons. 

His  coUectioo  was  but  little  known,  and  in  history  we  do  not  meet  it  until  785, 
.and  then  disfigured  and  interpolated  by  an  unknown  forger,  giving  his  name  as  Isi- 
dore Mercator.  This  collection  contained,  beside  the  pieces  contained  in  the  collec- 
tion of  Isidore  of  Seville,  certain  Decretals  which  he  ascribed  to  the  Popes  of  the 
first  three  centuries.  Several  scholars  make  Isidore  Mercator  and  Isidore  of  Seville 
separate  writers,  while  others  think  that  the  latter  had  added,  through  humility, 
the  word  Peccator  to  his  name,  which  was  corrupted  to  Mercator.  However  thia 
may  be,  the  best  Ultramontane  critics  as  well  as  the  OalUcans,  agree  that  the  De- 
cretals ascribed  to  the  Popes  of  the  first  centuries  in  the  collection  of  Isidore  Mer- 
cator, are  spurious.  Marchetti  himself  admits  their  spuriousness.  "  Learned  men 
of  great  piety,"  he  adds,  "  have  declared  against  this  false  collection,  which  Car- 
dinal Bona  frankly  calls  a  pious  fraud."  "  Baronius  does  not  as  frankly  regard 
them  as  a  fraud ;  nevertheless,  he  would  not  use  them  in  his  Ecclesiastical  Annals, 
lest  it  should  be  believed  that  the  Eoman  Church  needed  suspicious  documents  to 
establish  her  rights." 

The  Dltraraontanes  cannot  openly  sustain  these  Decretals  as  true,  for  it  has  been 
abundantly  proved  that  they  were  manufactured  partly  from  ancient  canons,  with 
extracts  from  the  letters  of  the  Popes  of  the  fourth  and  fifth  centuries.  Entire  pas- 
sages, particularly  from  St.  Leo  and  Gregory  the  Great,  are  found  in  them.  The 
whole  is  strung  together  in  bad  Latin,  which  for  even  the  least  critical  scholar  has 
all  the  characteristics  of  the  style  of  the  eighth  and  ninth  centuries. 

The  collection  of  Isidore  Mercator  was  disseminated  chiefly  by  Riculf,  Archbishop 
of  Mayence,  who  took  that  see  in  787.  Several  critics  have  concluded  from  this  that 
this  collection  first  appeared  at  Mayence,  and  even  that  Riculf  was  Its  author. 

Were  these  False  Decretals  fabricated  in  Spain,  Germany,  or  Rome  ?  We  have 
no  certainty  on  the  subject.  The  oldest  copies  tell  us  that  it  was  Ingelramn  who 
brought  this  collection  to  Rome  from  Metz,  when  he  had  a  lawsuit  there  in  785; 
but  other  copies  tell  us  that  it  was  Pope  Adrian  who,  upon  that  occasion,  delivered 
It  to  Ingelramn,  September  nineteenth,  a.d.  785.  Certain  It  Is,  that  at  Rome  we 
find  the  first  mention  of  It  Yet  Adrian  knew  that  these  Decretals  were  false,  since, 
ten  years  before,  he  had  given  Charlemagne  a  copy  of  the  canons,  which  was  ao 
other  than  that  of  Dionyslus  Exiguus. 

The  False  Decretals  were  so  extensively  circulated  in  the  West,  that  they  were 
everywhere  received,  and  particularly  at  Rome,  as  authentic. 

The  Ultramontanes,  while  they  do  not  dare  to  maintain  the  authority  of  the  writ- 
ings a3crit)ed  to  the  Popes  of  the  first  three  centuries,  nevertheless  indirectly  sustain 
them.  Several  works  have  been  written  with  this  object  against  Fleury,  who  justly 
asserted  and  abundantly  proved  that  they  changed  the  ancient  discipline.  We  will 
quote  among  these  Ultramontane  works  those  of  Marchetti,  of  Father  de  Housta, 
and  Father  Honor6  de  Sainte-Marle  : 

"  We  may  conjecture,"  says  Marchetti,  "  that  Isidore  gathered  the  Decretals  of 
ancient  Popes  which  the  persecutions  of  the»flrst  centuries  had  not  permitted  to  be 
collected,  and  that  animated  by  a  desire  to  transmit  the  collection  to  posterity,  he 


260  THE  PAPACY. 

"We  do  not  know  ;  but  it  is  an  incontestable  fact  that 
it  was  in  Home  itself  under  the  pontificate  of  Adrian^ 

made  sach  haste  that  he  overlooked  some  faults  and  chronological  erroors  which 
were  afterward  corrected  by  more  exact  criticism." 

Thus,  then,  the  Decretals  of  the  first  three  centuries  are  <alse  ;  nevertheless  they 
are  substantially  true.  Such  is  the  Ultramontane  system.  It  only  remains  to  say, 
to  make  the  business  complete,  that  the  texts  of  St.  Leo  and  St.  Gregory  the  Great, 
which  are  found  in  these  Decretals,  do  not  belong  to  those  fathers,  who,  in  that  case, 
must  have  copied  them  from  the  Decretals  of  their  predecessors.  It  would  be  quite 
as  reasonable  to  maintain  this  opinion,  as  to  say  that  we  only  find  in  the  False  De- 
cretals a  few  faults  and  chronological  errours. 

To  this  first  system  of  defence,  the  Ultramontanes  add  a  second.  They  make  a 
great  display  of  eloquence  to  prove  that  an  unknown  person  without  any  authority 
could  never  have  introduced  a  new  code  in  the  Church.  We  think  so  too.  But 
there  is  one  great  fact  of  the  very  highest  importance  which  our  Ultramontanes 
have  left  out  of  sight,  that,  at  the  time  when  the  False  Decretals  appeared,  the  see 
of  Rome  had  for  about  two  centuries  taken  advantage  of  every  occurrence  to  increase 
her  influence  and  to  put  into  practice  what  the  False  Decretals  lay  down  as  the 
law.  Every  one  knows  that  after  the  fall  of  the  Roman  empire,  most  of  the  Western 
nations  were  essentially  modified  by  the  invasion  of  new  races  ;  that  the  Church  se- 
riously felt  this  change  ;  that  the  pursuit  of  learning  was  abandoned,  and  that  after 
the  seventh  century  the  most  deplorable  ignorance  reigned  in  the  Western  churches. 
From  that  time  the  Bishops  of  Rome  began  to  take  part  directly  in  the  government 
of  individual  churches,  which  frequently' lay  in  the  hands  of  only  half-Christianized 
conquerors.  They  sent  missionaries  to  labour  for  the  conversion  of  the  invading 
tribes  ;  and  these  missionaries,  like  St.  Boniface  of  Mayence,  retained  for  the  Popes 
who  sent  them,  the  feelings  of  disciples  for  their  masters.  The  churches  newly 
founded  by  them,  remained  faithful  to  these  sentiments.  It  would  not,  therefore,  be 
surprising  if  the  fabricator  of  the  False  Decretals  lived  in  or  near  Mayence.  He 
composed  that  work  of  fragments  from  the  councils  and  the  Fathers,  and  added 
regulations  which  were  in  perfect  harmony  with  the  usages  of  the  see  of  Rome  at  the 
end  of  the  eighth  century,  and  which  Rome,  doubtless,  inspired. 

This  coincidence,  joined  to  the  ignorance  which  then  prevailed,  explains  suffi- 
ciently how  the  False  Decretals  could  be  accepted  without  protest — the  see  of  Rome 
nslng  all  its  influence  to  spread  them.  As  most  of  the  churches  had  been  accus- 
tomed for  two  centuries  to  feel  the  authority  of  the  Bishops  of  Rome,  they  accepted 
without  examination  documents  which  seemed  to  be  no  more  than  the  sanction  of 
this  authority.  The  False  Decretals  did  not  therefore  create  a  new  code  for  the 
Western  churches  ;  they  only  came  in  aid  of  a  regime  which,  owing  to  political  dis- 
turbances, the  Popes  themselves  had  created. 

Thus  the  Romanists  have  their  labour  for  their  pains,  when  they  seek  to  defend 
the  Decretals  by  saying  that  an  unknown  author  without  authority  could  not  have 
established  a  new  code. 

Here  are  the  objections  that  Pleury  makes  to  the  False  Decretals :  "  The  subject- 
matter  of  these  letters  *  reveals  their  spuriousness.  They  speak  of  archbishops,  pri- 
mates, patriarchs,  as  if  these  titles  had  existed  from  the  birth  of  the  Church.  They 
forbid  the  holding  of  any  council,  even  a  provincial  one,  without  permission  from 
the  Pope,  and  represent  appeals  to  Rome  as  habitual.  Frequent  complaint  is  therein 
made  of  usurpations  of  the  temporalities  of  the  Church.    We  find  there  this  maxim, 

•  Hist.  Eccl.  Uv.  xllv. 


THE   PAPACY. 


261 


and  in  the  year  in  which  he  wrote  so  haughtily  to  the 
Emperor  of  the  East,  that  this  new  code  of  the  Papacy 
is  first  mentioned  in  history.  Adrian  is  the  true  creator 
of  the  modern  Papacy.  Not  finding  in  the  traditions  of 
the  Church  the  documents  necessary  to  support  his  am- 
bitious views,  he  rested  them  upon  apocryphal  docu- 
ments written  to  suit  the  occasion,  and  to  legalize  all 
future  usurpations  of  the  Roman  see.  Adrian  knew 
that  the  Decretals  contained  in  the  code  of  Ingelramn 
were  false.     For  he  had  already  given,  ten  years  before, 

that  bishops  falling  into  sin  may,  after  having  done  penance,  exercise  their  func- 
tions as  before.  Finally,  the  principal  subject  of  these  Decretals  is  that  of  com- 
plaints against  bishops ;  there  is  scarcely  one  that  does  not  speak  of  them  and  give 
rules  to  make  them  difficult.  And  Isidore  makes  it  very  apparent  in  his  preface 
that  he  had  this  matter  deeply  at  heart." 

The  object  of  the  forger  in  this  last  matter  is  evident.  It  was  to  diminish  the  au- 
thority of  the  metropolitans,  who,  fl'om  time  immemorial,  had  enjoyed  the  right  to 
convoke  the  counfcil  of  their  province  to  hear  complaints  against  a  bishop  of  that 
province  in  particular,  and  judge  him.  The  forger,  whose  object  it  was  to  concen- 
trate all  authority  at  Rome,  would  naturally  first  endeavour  to  check  the  authority 
of  the  metropolitan,  and  make  the  appeals  to  Rome  seem  to  offer  greater  guarantees 
and  to  be  more  consonant  with  episcopal  dignity. 

One  must  be  utterly  ignorant  of  the  history  of  the  first  three  centuries,  not  to 
know  that  at  that  period  tlie  Church  had  no  fixed  organization  ;  that  it  was  not 
divided  into  provinces  and  dioceses  until  the  reign  of  Constantine  and  by  the  Coun- 
cil of  Nicea ;  that  it  was  this  council  that  recognized  in  the  sees  of  Rome,  Alexandria, 
and  Antioch  a  superiority  common  to  them  all  over  a  certain  number  of  churches  to 
which  they  had  given  birth,  and  over  which,  according  to  custom,  they  exercised  a 
special  supervision.  But  the  forger  does  not  hesitate  for  all  this  to  bring  into  play 
archbishops,  primates,  and  patriarchs  during  the  first  three  centuries,  and  ascribes 
to  the  first  Bishops  of  Rome,  as  rights,  prerogatives  which  the  councils  had  never 
recognized,  and  which  these  bishops  had  usurped  in  the  West  since  the  invasions  of 
the  barbarians  had  overthrown  the  ancient  Roman  polity. 

After  our  deep  study  of  the  history  of  the  Church,  we  feel  at  liberty  to  assert  that 
It  is  impossible  to  accumulate  more  errours  than  the  Ultramontanes  have  done,  to 
defend  the  alleged  legal  force  of  the  False  Decretals  ;  that  the  False  Decretals  es- 
tablished in  the  ninth  century  a  new  code  completely  opposed  to  that  of  the  first 
eight  Christian  centuries ;  and  that  the  forger  had  no  other  object  than  to  sanction 
the  encroachments  of  the  court  of  Rome  during  the  two  centuries  preceding  the  com- 
position of  his  work.  We  have  carefully  studied  what  has  been  said  pro  and  contra 
upon  this  subject.  The  writings  of  the  Romanists  have  convinced  us  that  this  forger 
of  the  ninth  century  has  never  been  defended  but  by  arguments  worthy  of  him ;  that 
is  to  say,  by  the  most  shameful  misrepresentations.  The  works  of  the  Galileans  are 
more  honest,  and  show  deeper  research.  Yet  even  in  them  we  perceive  a  certain 
reticency  which  injures  their  cause,  and  even  now  and  then  a  forced  and  unnatural 
attitude  concerning  Papal  prerogatives,  which  they  do  not  dare  to  deny.  (See  the 
works  of  Hlncmar  of  Hheims,  and  the  Annals  of  Father  Lecointe.) 


262  THE  PAPACY. 

to  Charles,  King  of  the  Franks,  a  code  of  the  ancient 
canons,  identical  with  the  generally  received  collection 
of  Dionysius  Exiguus.  It  was,  therefore,  between  the 
years  775  and  785  that  the  False  Decretals  were  com- 
posed. 

The  time  was  favorable  to  such  inventions.  In  the 
foreign  invasions  which  had  deluged  the  entire  West 
with  blood  and  covered  it  with  ruins,  the  libraries  of 
the  churches  and  monasteries  had  been  destroyed ;  the 
clergy  were  plunged  in  the  deepest  ignorance  ;  the  East, 
invaded  by  the  Mussulman,  had  now  scarcely  any  rela- 
tions with  the  West.  The  Papacy  profited  by  these 
misfortunes,  and  built  up  a  power  half  political  and  half 
religious  upon  these  ruins,  finding  no  lack  of  flatterers 
who  did  not  blush  to  invent  and  secretly  propagate 
their  forgeries  in  order  to  give  a  divine  character  to  an 
institution  that  has  ambition  for  its  only  source. 

The  False  Decretals  make  as  it  were  the  dividing 
point  between  the  Papacy  of  the  first  eight  and  that  of 
the  succeeding  centuries.  At  this  date,  the  pretensions 
of  the  Popes  begin  to  develop  and  take  each  day  a  more 
distinct  character.  The  answer  of  Adrian  to  Constan- 
tine  and  Irene  is  the  starting-point. 

The  legates  of  the  Pope  and  those  of  the  Patriarchal 
churches  of  Alexandria,  Antioch,  and  Jerusalem,  having 
gone  to  Constantinople,  Nicea  was  appointed  as  the 
place  of  assembling  the  council.  The  first  session  took 
place  September  twenty-fourth,  787.  This  second  Coun- 
cil of  Nicea  is  reckoned  the  seventh  cecximenical^  both  by 
the  Eastern  and  Western  churches.*  Adrian  was  rep- 
resented by  the  Archpriest  Peter,  and  by  another  Peter, 
Abbot  of  the  monastery  of  St.  Sabas  at  Rome.  The 
Bishops  of  Sicily  were  the  first  to  speak,  and  said,  "  We 
deem  it  advisable  that  the  most  holy  Archbishop  of  Con- 
stantinople should  open  the  council."     All  the  members 

*  See  its  transactloQg  in  Labbe's  Collection,  to).  Till. 


THE   FAFAVY.  263 

agreed  to  this  proposition,  and  Tarasius  made  them  an 
allocution  upon  the  duty  of  following  the  ancient  tradi- 
tions of  the  Church  in  the  decisions  they  were  about  to 
make.  Then  those  who  opposed  these  traditions  were 
introduced,  that  the  council  might  hear  a  statement  of 
their  doctrine.  Then  were  read  the  letters  brought  by 
the  legates  of  the  Bishops  of  Rome,  Alexandria,  Anti- 
och,  and  Jerusalem,  for  the  purpose  of  ascertaining  what 
the  faith  of  the  East  and  the  West  might  be.  The 
Bishop  of  Ancyra  had  shared  the  errour  of  the  icono- 
clasts. He  now  appeared  before  the  council  to  make 
his  confession  of  faith,  and  commenced  with  the  follow- 
ing words,  well  worthy  6f  being  quoted :  "  It  is  the  law 
of  the  Church,  that  those  who  are  converted  from  a 
heresy,  should  abjure  it  in  writing,  and  confess  the 
Catholic  faith.  Therefore  do  I,  Basil,  Bishop  of  An 
cyra,  wishing  to  unite  myself  with  the  Church,  with 
Pope  Adrian,  with  the  Patriarch  Tarasius,  with  the 
Apostolic  sees  of  Alexandria,  Antioch,  and  Jerusalem, 
and  with  all  Catholic  bishops  and  priests,  make  this  con- 
fession in  writing,  and  present  it  to  you,  who  have 
power  by  apostolic  authority." 

This  most  orthodox  language  clearly  proves  that  at 
that  time  the  Pope  of  Rome  was  not  regarded  as  the 
sole  centre  of  .unity ,  the  source  of  Catholic  authority ; 
that  unity  and  authority  were  only  recognized  in  the 
unanimity  of  the  sacerdotal  body. 

The  letter  of  Adrian  to  the  Emperor  and  Empress, 
and  the  one  he  had  written  to  Tarasius  were  then  read, 
but  only  in  so  far  as  they  treated  of  dogmatic  questions. 
His  complaints  against  the  title  of  oecumenical  and  his 
demands  concerning  the  patrimony  of  St.  Peter,  were 
passed  over  in  silence.  Nor  did  the  legates  of  Rome 
insist.  The  council  declared  that  it  approved  of  the 
Pope's  doctrine.  Next  were  read  the  letters  from  the 
Patriarchal  sees  of  the  East  whose  doctrine  agreed  with 


264  THE   FAFACY. 

that  of  the  West.  That  doctrine  was  compared  with 
the  teaching  of  the  Fathers  of  the  Church,  in  order  to 
verify  not  on\j  the  present  unanimity,  but  the  perpetuity 
of  the  doctrine  ;  and  the  question  was  also  examined, 
whether  the  iconoclasts  had  on  their  side  any  true  Cath- 
olic tradition.  After  this  double  preparatory  examina- 
tion, the  council  made  its  profession  of  faith,  deciding 
that  according  to  the  perpetual  doctrine  of  the  Church, 
images  should  be  venerated,  reserving  for  God  alone  the 
Latria  or  adoration,  properly  so  called. 

The  members  of  the  council  then  adjourned  to  Con- 
stantinople, where  the  last  session  took  place  in  the 
presence  of  Irene  and  Constantine  and  the  entire  people. 

The  Acts  of  the  seventh  oecumenical  council,  like 
those  of  the  preceding  ones,  clearly  prove  that  the 
Bishop  of  Rome  was  only  first  in  honour  in  the  Church ; 
that  his  testimony  had  no  doctrinal  weight,  except  in 
so  far  as  it  might  be  regarded  as  that  of  the  Western 
Church  ;  that  there  was  as  yet  no  individual  authority 
in  the  Church,  but  a  collective  authority  only,  of  which 
the  sacerdotal  body  was  the  echo  and  interpreter. 

This  doctrine  is  diametically  opposed  to  the  Romish 
system.  Let  us  add,  that  the  seventh  oecumenical  coun- 
cil, like  the  six  that  preceded  it,  was  neither  con- 
voked, presided  over,  nor  confirmed  by  the  Pope.  He 
concurred  in  it  by  his  legates,  and  the  West  concurred 
in  the  same  way,  whereby  it  acquired  its  oecumenical 
character. 

But  this  concurrence  of  the  West  was  not  at  first 
unanimous,  at  least  in  appearance,  notwithstanding  the 
well-known  concurrence  of  the  Pope ;  which  proves  that 
even  in  the  West  such  doctrinal  authority  was  not  then 
granted  to  the  Pope,  as  his  supporters  now  claim  for 
him.  Seven  years  after  the  Council  of  Nicea,  that  is,  in 
794,  Charlemagne  assembled  at  Frankfort  all  the  bish- 
ops of  the  kingdoms  he  had  conquered.     In  this  council 


THE   PAPACY.  265 

several  dogmatic  questions  were  discussed,  and  partic- 
ularly that  concerning  images.  By  the  decisions  there 
rendered,  the  council  intended  to  reject  that  of  the 
second  council  of  Nicea,  which  had  not  been  thoroughly 
understood  by  the  Frankic  Bishops.  These  Bishops  re- 
proached the  Pope  with  his  concurrence  in  that  deci- 
sion, and  Adrian  in  a  manner  apologized  for  it. 

He  recognized,  it  is  true,  the  orthodoxy  of  the  doc- 
trine professed  by  the  council,  but  alleged  that  other 
motives  would  have  impelled  him  to  reject  that  council, 
had  he  not  feared  lest  his  opposition  might  be  construed 
into  an  adherence  to  the  heresy  condemned.  "  We  have 
accepted  the  council,"*  wrote  Adrian,  "  because  its  de- 
cision agrees  with  the  doctrine  of  St.  Gregory  ;  fearing 
lest  if  we  did  not  receive  it,  the  Greeks  might  return  to 
their  errour,  and  we  be  responsible  for  the  loss  of  so 
many  souls.  Nevertheless,  we  have  not  yet  made  any 
answer  to  the  Emperor  on  tjie  subject  of  the  council. 
While  exhorting  them  to  reestablish  images,  we  have 
warned  them  to  restore  to  the  Roman  Church  her  ju- 
risdiction over  certain  bishoprics  and  archbishoprics, 
and  the  patrimonies  of  which  we  were  bereft  at  the 
time  when  images  were  abolished.  But  we  have  re- 
ceived no  answer,  which  shows  that  they  are  converted 
upon  one  point,  but  not  upon  the  other  two.  Therefore, 
if  you  think  Jit.,  when  we  shall  thank  the  Emperor  for 
the  reestablishment  of  images,  we  will  also  press  him 
further  upon  the  subject  of  the  restitution  of  the  patri- 
monies and  the  jurisdiction,  and,  if  he  refuse,  we  will 
pronounce  him  a  heretic.^'' 

The  attacks  of  the  Frankic  Bishops  against  Adrian, 
although  unjust,  prove  abundantly  that  they  did  not 
recognize  in  the  Papacy  the  authority  it  claims  to-day. 
The  False  Decretals  had  not  yet  been  able  completely 

*  Beep.  ad.  Lib.  Oarolin.  in  Labbe's  OoUection,  yoL  t1!). 


266  THE   FAPACr. 

to  prevail  over  the  ancient  usages.  Adrian  replied  to 
these  attacks  with  a  modesty  that  is  easy  of  explana- 
tion, when  we  reflect  how  much  he  needed  the  Franks 
and  their  King  Charlemagne  to  establish  the  basis  of 
the  new  Papacy.  Far  from  mentioning  that  alleged 
authority  which  he  so  proudly  strove  to'  impose  upon 
the  East,  he  was  willing,  in  respect  to  the  Franks,  to 
play  the  part  of  prisoner  at  the  bar.  He  made  ad- 
vances to  them  to  the  extent  of  proposing  to  pronounce 
the  Emperor  of  Constantinople  a  heretic  for  a  mere  ques- 
tion ot  temporal  possessions,  or  of  a  disputed  jurisdic- 
tion. But  we  find  in  Adrian,  under  this  humble  show 
of  submission,  a  prodigious  shrewdness  in  creating  oc- 
casions for  increasing  his  power.  If  the  Franks  had 
asked  him  to  declare  the  Emperor  of  Constantinople 
a  heretic,  they  would  thereby  have  recognized  in  him  a 
sovereign  and  universal  jurisdiction,  and  laid  thus  a  pre- 
cedent which  would  not  have  been  neglected  by  the 
Papacy. 

Adrian  I.  died  in  796,  and  was  succeeded  by  Leo  III., 
who  pursued  the  same  policy  as  his  predecessor.  Imme- 
diately after  his  election,  he  sent  to  Charlemagne  the 
standard  of  the  city  of  Rome  and  the  key  of  the  confes- 
sion of  St  Peter.  In  return  the  Frankic  King  sent  him 
costly  presents  by  an  ambassador,  who  was  to  come  to 
an  understanding  with  him  upon  all  that  concerned 
"  the  glory  of  the  Church,  and  the  strengthening  of  the 
J^xpal  dignity,  and  of  the  Roman  patriciate  given  to 
the  Frankic  King.* 

Leo  had  some  intercourse  with  the  East  upon  the  oc- 
casion of  the  divorce  of  the  Emperor  Constanline.  Two 
holy  monks,  Plato  and  Theodore  Studites,  declared  them- 
Belves  with  special  energy  against  the  adulterous  con- 
duct of  the  Emperor.  Theodore  applied  to  several  bish- 
ops for  aid  against  the  persecutions  which  their  opposi- 

AIcnlnEp.  84. 


THE   PAPACY.  267 

tion  to  the  Emperor  had  drawn  upon  them.    The  letters 
of  Theodore  Studites*  are  replete  with  fulsome  praises  of 
those  to  whom  he  writes.   The  Romish  theologians  have 
chosen  to  notice  only  the  compliments  addressed  to  the 
Bishop  of  Rome.     With   a   little   more   honesty  they 
might  as  easily  have  noted  those,  often  still  more  em- 
phatic, that  are  to  be  found  in  his  other  letters ;  and  they 
must  then  have  concluded  that  no  dogmatic  force  could 
be  attached  to  language  lavished  without  distinction  of 
sees,  according  to  circumstances,  and  with  the  evident 
purpose  of  flattering  those  to  wJiom  the  letters  were  ad- 
dressed in  order  to  render  them  favourable  to  the  cause 
which  Theodore  advocated.    The  Romanists  have  not 
been  willing  to  notice  so  obvious  a  fact.     They  have 
quoted  the  fulsome  praises  of  Theodore  as  dogmatic  tes- 
timony  in   favour  of  Papal   authority,   and   have   not 
chosen  to  see  that  if  they  have  such  a  dogmatic  value 
in  the  case  of  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  they  must  also  have 
it  no  less  in  behalf  of  the  Bishop  of  Jerusalem,  for  ex- 
ample, whom  he  calls  '■'•Jirst  of  the  Jive  Patriarchs^''  or 
others,  whom  he  addresses  with  as  much  extravagance. 
On  these  terms  we  should  have  in  the  Church  several 
Popes  enjoying,  each  of  them,  supreme  and  universal 
authority.     This  conclusion  would  not  suit  the  Romish 
theologians  ;  but  it  follows  necessarily  if  the  letters  of 
Theodore  Studites  have  the  dogmatic  value  that  Rome 
would  give  them  to  her  own  advantage.     Moreover,  if 
Theodore  Studites  occasionally  gave  pompous  praise  to 
the  Bishop  of  Rome,  he  could  also  speak  of  him  with 
very  little  respect,  as  we  may  see  in  his  letter  to  Basil, 
Abbot  of  St.  Sabas  of  Rome.f 

At  the  commencement  of  his  pontificate,  Leo  III.  had 
to  endure  a  violent  opposition  on  the  part  of  the  rela- 
tives of  his  predecessor,  Adrian.  They  heaped  atrocious 
accusations  upon  him. 

*  Theod.  stud.  Ep.  15.  t  Theod.  Stud.  Ep.  28. 


268 


THE   PAPACY. 


Charlemagne  having  come  to  Rome  (800)  as  a  patri- 
cian of  that  city,  assembled  a  coimcil  to  judge  the  Pope. 
But  Leo  was  sure  beforehand  that  he  would  prevail. 
He  had  received  Charlemagne  in  triumph,  and  the  pow- 
erful king  was  not  ungrateful  for  the  attentions  of  the 
pontiff.*  The  members  of  the  council  accordingly  de- 
clared with  one  voice  :  "  We  dare  not  judge  the  Apos- 
tolic see,  which  is  the  head  of  all  the  churches  ;  such  is 
the  ancient  custom  /"  Men  were  not  overnice  in  those 
days  in  matters  of  erudition.  By  the  ancient  usage  the 
Bishop  of  Rome  was  to  be  judged  like  any  other  bishop  ; 
but  the  doctrines  of  the  False  Decretals  had  no  doubt 
begun  to  spread.  Ingelramn  of  Metz,  Avho  had  used 
them  in  his  lawsuit  at  Rome,  Avas  the  chaplain  of  Charle- 
magne, and  one  of  his  first  councilors.  According  to 
this  7iexD  code  of  a  neiJO  Papacy.,  the  Apostolic  see,  Avhich 
could  judge  all,  could  be  judged  of  none.  Rome  ne- 
glected no  chance  to  establish  this  fundamental  princi- 
ple of  her  power,  of  which  the  inevitable  consequence 
is  Papal  infallibility  and  even  impeccability.  These  con- 
sequences were  not  developed  at  once,  but  the  principle 
was  now  skilfully  insinuated  upon  one  favourable  occasion, 
Leo  HI  justified  himself  upon  oath.  Some  days  later, 
on  Christmas-day,  a.d.  800,  Charlemagne  having  gone 
to  St.  Peter's,  the  Pope  placed  upon  his  head  a  rich 
crown,  and  the  people  exclaimed,  "  Long  life  and  vic- 
tory to  the  august  Charles,  crowned  by  the  hand  of  God 
great  and  pacific  Emperor  of  the  Romans  !"  These  ac- 
clamations were  thrice  enthusiastically  repeated  ;  after 
which  the  Pope  knelt  before  the  new  Emperor  and 
anointed  him  and  his  son  Pepin  with  the  holy  oil. 

Thus  was   the  Roman  empire  of  the  West  reestab- 
lished.    Rome,  who  had  always  looked  Avith  jealousy 

•  Sismondi  alleges  that  this  mock  trial  and  the  subsequent  capital  punishment  of 
Leo's  accusers  were  prearranged,  together  with  the  coronation  mentioned  in  the  text, 
during  Leo's  visit  to  Charlemagne  a  short  time  previous  at  Paderborn.  Sismondi, 
Fall  of  the  Roman  Empire,  ch.  xvii.— [Editor.] 


THE   PAPACY.  269 

upon  the  removal  of  the  seat  of  government  to  Constan- 
tinople, was  in  transports  of  joy  ;  the  Papacy,  pandering 
to  her  secret  lusts,  was  now  invested  with  power  such 
as  she  had  never  before  possessed.  The  idea  of  Adrian 
was  achieved  by  his  successor.  The  modern  Papacy,  a 
mixed  institution  half  political  and  lialf  religious,  was 
established  ;  a  new  era  was  beginning  for  the  Church 
of  Jesus  Christ — an  era  of  intrigues  and  struggles,  des- 
potism and  revolutions,  innovations  and  scandals. 


270  THE   PAPACY. 


VL 


THAT  THE  PAPACY,  BY  HER  NOVEL  AND  AMBITIOUS  PRE- 
TENSIONS, WAS  THE  CAUSE  OF  THE  SCHISM  BETWEEN 
THE    EASTERN   AND   WESTERN    CHURCHES. 


E  ha\e  shown.  First,  that  the  Bishops  of  Rome 
did  not  enjoy  universal  authority  during  the 
first  eight  centuries  of  the  Church.  Sec- 
ondly, That  they  were  not  then  considered 
either  as  the  centre  of  unity  or  as  the  source  of  juris- 
diction. Thirdly,  That  they  were  not  supposed  to  be 
invested  of  divine  right  with  any  prerogatives  whatever 
as  successors  of  St.  Peter. 

If,  after  the  ninth  century,  they  put  forward  in  re- 
spect of  these  three  points  pretensions  contrary  to  the 
established  and  universal  doctrine  of  the  first  eight  cen- 
turies ;  if  they  undertook  to  subject  the  whole  Church 
to  their  sovereign  authority  ;  if  they  assumed  to  be  the 
necessary  centime  of  unity  and  the  source  of  jurisdiction, 
we  must  conclude  that  they  have  sought  to  usurp  a 
power  to  which  they  had  no  right. 

If  these  usurpations  provoked  energetic  resistance  on 
the  part  of  the  Eastern  Church  ;  if  the  Bishops  of  Rome 
made  the  recognition  of  their  usurped  power  a  condition 
precedent  to  retlnion,  it  must  follow  that  the  Papacy  is 
the  first  and  direct  cause  of  the  division.  The  facts  we 
shall  allege  will  prove  this  to  be  so. 

After  the  coronation  of  Charlemagne,  there  was  an 
interval  of  peace  between  the  two  churches.     Leo  the 


THE   FAPACY.  271 

Armenian  renewed  the  heresy  of  the  Iconoclasts  and  per- 
secuted the  Catholics.    Many  took  refuge  in  Rome ;  and 
Pascal  I.  (817)  built  a  church  for  them,  in  which  they 
held  services  in  Greek.    This  Pope  even  sent  letters  and 
legates  to  Constantinople  to  advocate  the  cause  of  the 
faith,  which  the  majority  of  the  bishops,  with  the  Patri- 
arch Nicephorus  at  their  head,  courageously  defended. 
Leo  the  Armenian,  hoping  nothing  from  Rome,  sought 
a  support  in  the  Church  of  France.     The  Bishops  of 
that  church  assembled  at  Paris  and  adopted  several  de- 
cisions similar  to  those  of  the  Council  of  Frankfort,  of 
which  we  have  spoken.     Several  of  them  we're  sent  to 
Rome  to  give  good  advice  to  the  Pope,  then  Eugenius  II. 
This  was  the  beginning  of  that  traditional  opposition 
of  the  Church  of  France  to  the  Papacy,  in  conformity 
with   catholic   doctrine,  which  has  been  called   GaUi- 
cafiism. 

The  Bishops  of  the  Council  of  Paris,  like  those  of 
Frankfort,  had  no  precise  notion  of  the  question  dis- 
cussed in  the  East ;  but  we  only  desire  to  prove  by  them 
that  they  believed  they  had  the  right  to  contest  the 
cEcuraenical  character  of  the  seventh  general  council, 
even  after  the  Pope  had  concurred  in  it,  and  that  they 
ascribed  no  dogmatic  authority  in  the  Church  to  the 
Bishop  of  Rome. 

Several  somewhat  obscure  Popes  now  gucceeded  each 
other  until  858,  when  Nicholas  I.  took  the  see  of  Rome. 
The  Eastern  Church,  persecuted  by  iconoclastic  empe- 
rors, defended  the  holy  traditions  of  the  Church  with 
invincible  courage.  She  enjoyed  some  tranquillity  at 
last  under  the  reign  of  Michael,  (842,)  after  a  persecu- 
tion that  had  continued  almost  without  interruption  for 
a  hundred  and  twenty  years.  Methodius,  one  of  the 
most  courageous  defenders  of  orthodoxy,  became  Bishop 
of  Constantinople,  and  was  succeeded  (847)  by  Ignatius, 
son  of  the  Emperor  Michael  Rhangabc,  predecessor  of 


272  THE   FAFACY. 

Leo  the  Armeiuan.  This  Michael  liad  been  shut  up  in  a 
monastery  with  his  three  sons,  who  had  been  made  eu- 
nuchs, in  order  to  incapacitate  them  for  reigning.  Ig- 
natius passed  through  all  the  lower  degrees  of  the  cler- 
gy, and  was  a  priest  when  chosen  for  the  Patriarchal 
see.  The  Emperor  Michael  was  a  licentious  man,  who 
left  his  uncle  Bardas  to  govern  the  empire.  Ignatius 
drew  upon  himself  the  hatred  of  the  Emperor  by  refus- 
ing to  make  nuns  of  the  Empress  dowager  Theodora 
and  her  two  daughters.  He  made  a  powerful  enemy 
of  Bardas,  to  whom  he  publicly  refused  the  communion, 
because  of  the  scandal  of  his  private  life.  Moreover, 
from  the  day  of  his  consecration,  he  had  also  incurred 
the  enmity  of  Gregory,  Bishop  of  Syracuse,  by  humili- 
ating him  and  refusing  to  permit  him  to  take  part  in 
that  solemnity,  on  the  gi'ound  that  he  was  accused  of 
divers  misdemeanours ;  which  was  indeed  true,  but  he 
had.  not  been  judged.  Ignatius  subsequently  judged 
and  condemned  him ;  but  Rome,  to  which  Gregory  ap- 
pealed, refused  at  lirst  to  confirm  the  sentence,  notwith- 
standing the  solicitations  of  Ignatius,  and  only  consent- 
ed when  war  was  openly  declared  against  Photius  and 
his  adherents. 

We  willingly  admit  that  Ignatius  had  none  but  good 
intentions  and  conscientious  motives  in  all  that  he  did; 
but  it  is  also  just  to  acknowledge  that  he  imitated 
neither  the  prudence  of  a  Tarasius,  nor  the  sublime 
self-denial  of  a  Chrysostom.  Naturally  enough,  the 
recollection  of  the  imperial  power,  of  which  his  father 
had  been  deprived  by  violence,  did  not  dispose  him 
to  humour  those  who  held  that  high  position  which  he 
looked  upon  as  the  birthright  of  his  family.  The  im- 
perial court  accused  him  of  taking  sides  with  an  adven- 
turer who  fancied  he  had  claims  on  the  imperial  crown, 
and  he  was  exiled. 

Many  of  the  bishops  before  him  had  been  equally  ex- 


IHE   PAPACY.  273 

posed  to  the  caprice  of  the  court.  Among  his  predeces- 
sors, and  even  in  the  see  of  Rome,  Ignatius  might  have 
found  examples  of  men  who  preferred  to  renounce  a 
dignity  they  could  no  longer  exercise  with  profit  to  the 
Church,  rather  than  to  excite  by  useless  opposition  dis- 
turbances which  always  injure  it.  He  did  not  see  fit  to 
imitate  these  examples,  and  refused  to  renounce  his  dig- 
nity in  spite  of  the  entreaties  of  several  bishops. 

The  court  could  not  yield.  It  convoked  the  clergy, 
who  chose  Photius  for  their  Patriarch. 

Photius  was  ^nephew  of  the  Patriarch  Tarasius,  and 
belonged  to  the  imperial  family.  His  portrait  is  thus 
drawn  by  Fleury  :* 

"  The  genius  of  Photius  was  even  above  his  birth. 
He  had  a  great  mind  carefully  cultivated.  His  wealth 
enabled  him  readily  to  find  books  of  all  descriptions ; 
and  his  desire  of  glory  led  him  to  pass  whole  nights  in 
reading.  He  thus  became  the  most  learned  man  not 
only  of  his  own  but  of  preceding  ages.  He  was  versed 
in  grammar,  poetry,  rhetoric,  philosophy,  medicine,  and 
all  the  secular  sciences  ;  but  he  had  not  neglected  eccle- 
siastical lore,  and  when  he  came  to  office,  he  made  him- 
self thoroughly  acquainted  with  it." 

In  a  work  latterly  composed  by  the  court  of  Rome, 
they  have  been  obliged  to  say  of  Photius  :f  "  His  vast 
erudition,  his  insinuating  temper,  at  once  supple  and 
firm,  and  his  capacity  in  political  affairs,  even  his  sweet 
expression  of  face,  his  noble  and  attractive  manners, 
made  him  conspicuous  among  his  contemporaries." 

But  we  ought  first  to  have  traced  the  character  of 
Photius  after  those  writers  who  are  not  suspected  of 
partiality  to  him.  Truth  also  demands  that  we  should 
state  what  documents  have  served  as  the  basis  of  all 


♦  Fleury  Hist.  Eccl.  Lib.  L.  §  3,  ann.  858. 

t  The  Eastern  Church,  a  book  published  under  the  name  of  M.  Pitzipios,  Part  L 
chap.  4,  edition  of  the  Roman  "  Propaganda." 


274  THE  PAPACY. 

that  has  since  been  written  in  the  Roman  Church  upon 
the  important  events  in  which  he  took  part. 

We  will  first  mention  the  letters  of  Metrophanes,  me- 
tropolitan of  Smyrna,  of  Stylien,  Bishop  of  Neo-Caesarea, 
and  of  the  monk  Theognostus.  These  three  men  are 
known  as  personal  enemies  of  Photius.  Anastasius  the 
Librarian  was  so  contemptible  a  man  that  no  import- 
ance can  be  attached  to  his  testimony.  The  following 
is  an  abstract  of  the  sentence  rendered  against  him  at 
Rome  itself  in  868  :  "  The  whole  Church  of  God  knows 
what  Anastasius  did  in  the  times  of  the  Popes  our  pre- 
decessors, and  what  Leo  and  Benedict  ordered  in  re- 
spect to  him,  that  the  one  deposed,  excommunicated, 
and  anathematized  him  ;  the  other  having  stripped  him 
of  his  priestly  vestments,  admitted  him  to  lay  commun- 
ion. Subsequently,  Pope  Nicholas  reinstated  him  on 
condition  of  his  remaining  faithful  to  the  Roman 
Church.  But  after  having  pillaged  our  Patriarchal 
palace  and  carried  off  the  Acts  of  the  Councils  in  which 
he  had  been  condemned,  he  has  sent  men  out  over  the 
walls  of  this  city  to  sow  discord  between  the  princes  and 
the  Church  ;  and  caused  one  Adalgrim,  who  had  taken 
refuge  in  the  Church,  to  lose  his  eyes  and  tongue. 
Finally,  as  many  among  you  have,  like  myself,  heard 
a  priest,  named  Adon,  a  relative  of  his,  say,  he  has  for- 
gotten our  benefits  to  the  extent  of  sending  a  man  to 
Eleutherus  to  induce  him  to  commit  the  murders  you 
know  of.*  Therefore  we  order,  in  conformity  with  the 
judgments  of  Popes  Leo  and  Benedict,  that  he  be  de- 
prived of  all  ecclesiastical  communion,  until  such  time 

♦  Eleutherus,  son  of  Bishop  Arsenus,  having  debauched  a  daughter  of  Pope  Adrian 
n.,  carried  her  off  and  married  her,  though  she  was  betrothed  to  another.  This  Pope 
obtained  from  the  Emperor  Louis  commisf=if/ners  to  judge  him  according  to  the  Ro- 
man law.  Then  Eleutherus  became  furious,  and  l<illed  Stephanie  the  wife  of  the 
Pope,  and  his  daughter,  who  had  become  his  own  wife.  It  was  rumoured  that  Anas- 
tasius had  put  up  his  brother  Eleutherus  to  commit  these  murders.  At  the  com- 
mencement of  his  reign,  about  868,  Adrian  bad  made  Anastasius  librarian  of  the  Ro- 
man  Church.     (V.  Annales  Bertin.) 


TEE  PAPACY.  275 

as  he  shall  be  acquitted  by  a  council  of  the  things  where- 
of he  is  accused  ;  and  whoever  communicates  with  him, 
or  even  speaks  to  him,  incurs  the  same  excommunica- 
tion. If  he  remove  himself  however  little  from  Rome, 
or  if  he  discharge  any  ecclesiastical  function,  he  shall- 
sufFer  perpetual  anathema,  both  he  and  his  accomplices." 

Anastasius  doubtless  obtained  a  pardon  from  Adrian 
as  he  had  obtained  it  from  Pope  Nicholas.  Rome  had 
need  of  him  in  her  contentions  with  the  East,  for  he 
spoke  Greek  very  well,  which  was  then  a  rare  accom- 
plishment in  the  West.  Accordingly,  in  the  following 
year  (869)  we  find  Anastasius  at  Constantinople,  engaged 
in  the  council  against  Photius.  He  translated  its  decrees 
from  Greek  into  Latin,  and  added  a  preface,  in  which 
he  describes,  in  his  own  style,  the  acts  attributed  to 
Photius.  Could  such  a  man  be  regarded  as  a  credible 
witness  against  the  Patriarch  of  Constantinople,  as  a 
wise  discriminator  of  facts,  or  as  an  honest  narrator  ? 
May  we  not  believe  that  he  wished  to  show  himself 
faithful  to  the  Roman  Church  accoi'ding  to  the  condi» 
tion  of  his  first  pardon  granted  by  Nicholas  ? 

"It  is  not  known  precisely  at  what  time  this  authoi 
died.  It  is  certain  that  he  was  still  living  under  the 
pontificate  of  John  VIII.,  who  was  elected  in  872,  and 
died  in  882."* 

There  has  irdeed  been  an  attempt  to  make  the  world 
believe  in  a  se^i  nd  Anastasius,  the  Librarian  at  Rome 
at  the  same  time,  so  as  not  to  load  the  historian  of  the 
Popes  with  accusations  which  deprive  4iim  of  all  credi- 
bility. But  no  proof  can  be  brought  to  sustain  this  as- 
.sertion,  which  must  consequently  be  regarded  as  devoid 
of  all  foundation.  It  is  certain  that  Anastasius  the  Li- 
brarian flourished  precisely  at  the  time  we  have  men- 
tioned, and  that  no  other  Anastasius  the  Librarian  is 
known  beside  the  one  implicated  in  the  atrocious  crimes 

*  Feller,  Diet,  Biog.  voc.  Anastasius. 


276  THE    PAPACY. 

mentioned  in  his  sentence  ;  who  was  repeatedly  con- 
demned there  at  Rome  itself,  and  who  only  obtained 
pardon  upon  conditions  which  lay  him  open  to  suspicion, 
when  he  speaks  of  the  enemies  of  the  Roman  Church. 

The  testimony  of  Nicetas  David,  the  Paphlagonian, 
author  of  the  Life  of  Ignatius^  is  relied  on  against  Pho- 
tius.  We  may  even  say  that  this  writer  is  the  great 
authority  against  him.  Still,  impartiality  compels  us  to 
observe,  that  Nicetas  carried  party  spirit  so  far  against 
Photius  as  to  adopt  the  famous  addition  {FlUoqxie)  made 
to  the  creed,  though  not  yet  officially  t-ecognized  as  le- 
gitimate even  in  the  West.  The  whole  of  his  recital  and 
that  of  Michael  Syncellus,  proves  that  these  two  writers 
must  be  ranked  among  the  personal  enemies  of  Photius. 

Now,  when  a  historical  personage  is  to  be  judged, 
should  we  defer  to  the  opinion  of  his  enemies  ?  The 
question  answers  itself. 

A  clear  and  invincible  argument  against  these  authors 
may  be  drawn  from  their  own  writings,  as  compared 
with  other  historians  such  as  George,  Cedrenus,  Zona- 
ras,  and  Constantine  Porphyrogenitus.  The  former 
attribute  to  Photius,  on  account  of  their  hatred  to  him, 
the  persecutions  of  which  Ignatius  was  the  object,  while 
they  are  ascribed  to  Bardas  by  the  latter,  who  are  im- 
partial. 

How  shall  we  decide  between  these  conflicting  ac- 
counts of  the  historians  ?  We  will  believe  neither. 
Photius,  and  the  Popes  with  whom  he  quarrelled,  wrote 
letters  in  which  their  own  thoughts  are  set  forth.  These 
letters  exist ;  they  are  the  most  credible  documents. 
We  will  hear  the  liticjants-  themselves  defend  their  own 
cause.     This  is  the  best  mode  of  arriving  at  the  truth. 

Photius  received  the  episcopal  ordination  on  Christ- 
mas day,  858.  The  following  year  he  wrote  to  Nicho- 
las I.,  then  Bishop  of  Rome : 

"To  the  most  holy,  sacred,  and  reverend  fellow-minis- 


THB  PAPACY.  277 

ter,  Nicholas,  Pope  of  the  old  Rome :  Photius,  Bishop 
of  Constantinople,  the  new  Rome : 

"  When  I  consider  the  grandeur  of  the  priesthood ; 
when  I  think  of  the  distance  between  its  perfection  and 
the  baseness  of  man ;  when  I  measure  the  weakness  of 
my  powers,  and  recall  the  ideas  I  have  had  all  my  life 
of  the  sublimity  of  such  a  dignity — thoughts  which  in- 
spired me  with  wonder,  with  stupefaction,  when  I  saw 
the  ^en  of  our  times,  not  to  mention  those  of  ancient 
times,  accepting  the  dreadful  yoke  of  the  pontificate, 
and,  thougli  men  of  flesh  and  blood,  undertaking,  at 
their  great  peril,  to  fulfil  the  ministry  of  the  pure-spirited 
cherubim ;  when  my  mind  dwells  upon  such  thoughts, 
and  I  find  myself  in  that  position  in  which  I  have  trem- 
bled to  see  others,  I  cannot  express  the  pain  and  the 
grief  I  experience.  In  childhood  I  took  a  resolution 
that  age  has  only  strengthened,  to  keep  myself  aloof 
from  business  and  noise,  and  to  enjoy  the  peaceful  de- 
lights of  private  life ;  still  (I  should  confess  it  to  your 
Holiness,  since  in  writing  to  you  I  owe  you  the  truth) 
I  have  been  obliged  to  accept  dignities  from  the  impe- 
rial court,  and  thus  break  my  resolutions.  Yet  have  I 
never  been  so  bold  as  to  aspire  to  the  dignity  of  the 
priesthood.  It  seemed  to  me  too  venerable  and  formi- 
dable ;  'above  all,  when  I  recalled  the  example  of  St. 
Peter,  head  of  the  Apostles,  who,  after  having  given  to 
our  Lord  and  our  true  God,  Jesus  Christy  so  many  evi- 
dences of  his  faith,  and  showed  how  ardently  he  loved 
him,  regarded  the  honour  of  being  raised  by  his  Master 
to  the  priesthood  as  the  crowning  glory  of  all  his  good 
works.  I  also  recall  the  example  of  that  servant  who 
had  received  one  talent,  and  who,  having  hid  it,  be- 
cause his  master  was  a  hard  man,  that  he  might  not 
lose  it,  was  obliged  to  give  an  account  of  it,  and  was 
condemned  to  the  fire  and  to  Hades  for  having  per- 
mitted it  to  lie  idle. 


278  THE  PAPACY. 

"  But  why  should  I  thus  write  to  you,  and  renew  my 
pain  and  aggravate  my  grief,  and  make  you  the  confi- 
dant of  my  sorrow  ?  The  remembrance  of  painful  things 
embitters  their  evil  without  bringing  any  solace.  That 
which  has  happened  is  like  a  tragedy,  which  took  place, 
no  doubt,  in  order  that  by  your  prayers  we  might  be 
enabled  to  govern  well  that  flock  which  has  been  com- 
mitted to  us,  I  know  not  how ;  that  the  cloud  of  dif- 
ficulties hanging  over  us  might  be"  dispelled ;  that  the 
heavy  atmosphere  which  surrounds  us  might  be  cleared. 
Even  as  a  pilot  is  joyful  when  he  sees  his  well-directed 
bark  driven  by  a  favourable  wind,  so  a  church  is  the  joy 
of  a  pastor,  who  sees  it  increase  in  piety  and  virtue, 
dispelling  the  anxieties  that  encompass  him  like  clouds, 
and  the  fears  inspired  by  his  own  weakness. 

"  A  short  time  since,  wlien  he  who  had  the  episcopal 
office  before  us  abandoned  this  honour^  I  found  myself 
attacked  on  all  sides,  uuder  what  direction  I  do  not 
know,  by  the  clergy  and  the  assembly  of  bishops  and 
metropolitans,  and  particularly  by  the  Emperor,  who  is 
full  of  love  for  Christ,  good,  just,  humane,  and  (why 
shall  I  not  say  it  ?)  more  just  than  those  who  reigned 
before  hira.  Only  against  me  has  he  been  inhuman,  vio- 
lent, and  terrible.  Acting  in  concert  with  the  assembly 
of  which  I  have  spoken,  he  has  given  me  no  respite, 
actuated,  he  says,  to  this  insistance  by  the  unanimous 
wish  and  desire  of  the  clergy,  who  would  allow  me  no 
excuse ;  and  asserting  that  in  view  of  such  a  vote  he 
could  not,  however  he  might  desire  it,  permit  my  resist- 
ance. The  assembly  of  the  clergy  was  large,  and  my  en- 
treaties could  not  be  heard  by  many  of  them  ;  those 
who  heard  them  took  no  heed  of  them  ;  they  had  but 
one  intention,  one  determined  resolve — that  of  imposing 
the  episcopate  upon  me  in  spite  of  myself."     .     .     . 

We  will  pause  here  one  moment.  The  enemies  of 
Photius  have  maintained  that  in  thus  expressing  him- 


THE   PAPACY.  279 

self  he  gave  evidence  of  his  hypocrisy  ;  that  instead  of 
refusing  the  episcopacy,  he  had  desired  it.  They  also 
accuse  him  of  falsehood  in  asserting  that  his  predeces- 
sor had  abandoned  his  dignity. 

Are  these  two  assertions  true  ?  We  can  better  know 
a  man  by  his  familiar  correspondence  than  by  the  gra- 
tuitous assertions  of  his  enemies.  This  is  certainly  a 
principle  that  no  one  will  contest.  Now  the  familiar 
letters  of  Photius  to  his  relative,  the  "  Caesar"  Bardas, 
clearly  prove  that  he  left  no  means  untried  to  escape 
from  the  dignity  that  it  was  sought  to  impose  upon  him. 
The  honours  which  he  enjoyed  at  court  were  already  a 
burden  to  him,  because  they  forced  him  from  studies 
which  were  his  only  passion  ;  he  knew,  that  once  raised 
to  the  patriarchal  chair,  he  would  be  compelled  to  give 
up  that  peaceful  life  in  which  he  enjoyed  the  truest 
delights  of  learning  ;  and  therefore  he  entreated  Bardas 
to  give  another  the  chair.*  What  motive  could  he  have 
had  to  write  this  intimately  to  a  man  who  knew  his 
tastes  and  was  his  friend  ? 

Now  did  Photius  seek  to  deceive  the  Pope  by  writing 
to  him  that  Ignatius  had  abandoned  his  see  ?  It  is  cer- 
tain that,  right  or  wrong,  Ignatius  had  been  condemned 
as  a  conspirator,  and  as  such  banished  by  the  Emperor. 
If,  under  these  circumstances,  he  had,  as  Anastasius  the 
Librarian  asserts,  laid  his  church  under  a  species  of 
interdict,  such  conduct  Avould  have  been  criminal  and 
opposed  to  that  of  the  greatest  and*most  saintly  bishops. 
We  have  already  seen  Pope  Martin  condemned,  perse- 
cuted, and  banished  like  Ignatius,  yet  acknowledging 
the  legitimacy  of  Eugene,  elected  by  the  Roman  Church 
as  his  successor  without  his  ever  having  given  his  resig- 
nation. St.  Chrysostom,  unjustly  exiled,  wrote  in  this 
noble  language  :  "  The  Church  did  not  begin  with  me, 

•  Photl.  Eplst.  ad  Bard. 


280  THE   PAPACY. 

nor  will  it  end  with  me.  The  Apostles  and  the  Pro- 
phets have  suffered  far  greater  persecutions." 

As  a  conclusion,  he  exhorted  the  bishops  to  obey  who- 
ever should  be  put  in  his  place,  and  only  begged  them 
not  to  sign  his  condemnation  if  they  did  not  believe  him 
guilty. 

Photius  must  have  considered  this  custom,  and  looked 
upon  his  predecessor  as  having  fallen  from  his  dignity, 
seeing  that  all  the  clergy  except  five  votes*  had  elected 
him  to  succeed  Ignatius.  But  he  could  not  write  to  the 
Pope  that  Ignatius  had  been  deposed,  since  he  had  not 
been  canonically  condemned. 

He  was  therefore  neither  a  hypocrite  nor  a  liar  in  writ- 
ing to  the  Pope,  as  we  have  seen.     He  thus  continues  : 

"  The  opportunity  for  entreaty  being  taken  from  me, 
I  burst  into  tears.  The  sorrow  which  seemed  like  a 
cloud  within  me  and  filled  me  with  anxiety  and  dark- 
ness, broke  at  once  into  a  torrent  of  tears  which  over- 
flowed from  my  eyes.  To  see  our  words  unavailing  to 
obtain  safety,  impels  us  naturally  to  prayers  and  tears ; 
we  hope  for  some  aid  from  them  even  though  we  can  no 
longer  expect  it.  Those  who  thus  did  violence  to  ray 
feelings  left  me  no  peace  until  they  had  obtained  what 
they  desired,  although  against  my  will.  Thus  here  I 
am,  exposed  to  storms  and  judgments  that  only  God 
knows  of,  who  knows  all  things.  But  enough  of  this, 
as  the  phrase  is." 

"  Now  as  commuftioa  of  faith  is  the  best  of  all,  and 
as  it  is  preeminently  the  source  of  true  love,  in  order  to 
contract  with  your  Holiness  a  pure  and  indissoluble 
bond,  we  have  resolved  to  briefly  engrave,  as  upon  mar- 
ble, our  faith,  which  is  yours  also.  By  that  means  we 
shall  more  promptly  obtain  the  aid  of  your  fervent 
prayers,  and  give  you  the  best  evidence  of  our  affec- 
tion." 

♦  Those  historlBna  who  are  enemies  to  Photius  acknowledge  this. 


THE  PAPACY.  281 

Photius  then  makes  his  profession  of  failli  with  an 
exactitude  and  depth  worthy  of  the  greatest  theologian. 
He  there  refers  the  fundamental  truths  of  Christianity  to 
the  mysteries  of  the  Trinity,  the  Incarnation,  and  Re- 
demption. He  accepts  the  seven  oecumenical  councils, 
and  sets  forth  in  few  words,  but  with  remarkable  accu- 
racy, the  doctrine  there  propounded.     He  adds  : 

"  Such  is  the  profession  of  my  faith,  touching  the 
things  that  belong  to  it  and  flow  from  it.  In  this  faith 
is  my  hope.  It  is  not  mine  alone,  but  is  shared  by  all 
those  who  Avish  to  live  piously,  who  have  in  them  the 
love  of  God,  who  have  resolved  to  maintain  the  pure 
and  exact  Christian  doctrine.  In  recording  thus  our 
profession  of  faith  in  writing,  and  in  making  known  to 
your  very  sacred  Holiness  that  which  concerns  us,  we 
have  as  it  were  engraved  upon  marble  what  we  have 
expressed  to  you  in  words ;  as  we  have  told  you,  we 
need  your  prayers,  that  God  may  be  good  and  propitious 
to  us  in  all  we  undertake  ;  that  He  may  grant  us  grace 
to  tear  up  every  root  of  scandal,  every  stone  of  stum- 
bling from  the  ecclesiastical  order ;  that  we  may  care- 
fully pasture  all  those  committed  to  us  ;  that  the  multi- 
tude of  our  sins  may  not  retard  the  progress  of  our  flock 
in  virtue,  and  thereby  make  our  flxults  more  numerous ; 
that  I  may  at  all  times  do  and  say  to  the  faithful  what  is 
proper  ;  that  on  their  side  they  may  be  always  obedient 
and  docile  in  what  concerns  their  salvation  ;  that  by  the 
grace  and  goodness  of  Christ,  who  is  the  chief  of  all, 
they  may  grow  continually  in  Him,  to  whom  be  Glory 
and  the  kingdom  with  the  Father  and  Holy  Spirit,  the 
consubstantial  Trinity  and  principle  of  life,  now  and 
evermore,  world  without  end.     Amen." 

This  letter  savours  of  the  taste  of  the  age  in  its  affect- 
ed style.  But  it  is  no  less  a  beautiful  monument  of  or- 
thodoxy, and,  in  all  respects,  worthy  of  a  great  writer 
and  a  great  bishop. 


282  THE  PAPACY. 

The  enemies  of  Photius  have  said  that  another,  claim- 
ed to  be  his  first  letter  to  the  Pope,  was  a  work  of  hy- 
pocrisy in  which  he  sought  to  win  him  over  to  his  side 
by  unworthy  means,  and  chiefly  by  afiecting  great  zeal 
against  the  iconoclasts.  They  have  never  been  able  to 
quote  a  line  of  this  supposed  letter.  Those  who  invent- 
ed it  seem  not  to  have  remembered  that  the  bishops 
could  not  hold  the  least  intercourse  before  the  usual  let- 
ters of  intercommunion.  On  this  occasion  as  on  many 
others,  hatred  has  made  the  forgers  blind.  ^\\q  first  let- 
ter of  Photius  to  the  Pope  is  the  one  we  have  just  trans- 
lated. 

It  was  brought  to  Rome  with  a  letter  from  the  Em- 
peror. Nicholas  I.  took  this  occasion  to  do  an  act  of 
supreme  authority  in  the  Church.  This  Pope  is  one  of 
those  who  most  contributed  to  unfold  the  work  of 
Adrian  I.  The  Jesuit  Maimbourg,*  meaning  to  praise 
him,  asserts  that,  "  during  his  pontificate  of  nine  years, 
he  raised  the  papal  power  to  a  height  it  had  never  be- 
fore reached,  especially  in  respect  to  emperors,  kings, 
princes,  and  patriarchs,  whom  he  treated  more  roughly 
than  any  of  his  predecessors,  whenever  he  thought  him- 
self wronged  in  the  prerogatives  of  his  pontifical  pow- 
er." This  is  undoubtedly  true,  but  Father  Maimbourg 
did  not  appreciate  either  the  historical  importance  of 
what  he  established,  nor  the  fatal  consequences  of  this 
development  of  papal  power.  Nor  did  he  see  that  this 
vaunted  development  was  nothing  short  of  a  radical 
change,  and  that,  in  the  ninth  century,  the  Papacy  was 
no  longer  the  Roman  patriarchate  of  the  first  eight  cen- 
turies. 

Nicholas  did  not  know  what  had  taken  place  at- Con- 
stantinople at  the  time  of  the  deposition  of  Ignatius  and 
the  election  of  Photius.  He  only  knew  that  Photius 
was  a  layman  kt  the  time  of  his  election.    It  is  true, 

*  Maimb.  History  of  the  Qreek  Schism. 


THE  PAPACY.  283 

many  canons  of  the  West  forbade  hasty  ordinations ; 
but  these  canons  did  not  obtain  in  the  East,  and 
although  usage  there  was  in  favour  of  progressive  ordi- 
nations, the  history  of  the  Church  proves,  by  numerous 
examples,  that  these  canons  and  this  usage  were  occa- 
sionally passed  over  in  favour  of  men  of  distinguished 
merit  and  under  circumstances  of  peculiar  gravity.  We 
need  only  to  recall  the  names  of  Ambrose  of  Milan,  Nec- 
tarius,  Tarasius,  and  Nicephorus  of  Constantinople,  to 
prove  that  the  ordination  of  Photius  was  not  without 
the  most  venerable  precedent.  But  Nicholas  desired  to 
appear  in  the  character  of  supreme  arbiter.  Instead  of 
modestly  putting  off  intercommunion  with  the  new  Pa- 
triarch until  he  should  be  more  fully  informed,  he  an- 
swered the  letters  of  Photius  and  of  the  Emperor  in  this 
style :  "^ 

"  The  Creator  of  all  things  has  established  the  Prince- 
dom of  the  divine  power  which  the  Creator  of  all  things 
has  granted  to  his  chosen  Apostles.  He  haS  firmly 
established  it  on  the  firm  faith  of  the  Prince  of  the 
Apostles,  that  is  to  say  Peter,  to  whom  he  preeminently 
granted  the  first  see.  For  to  him  was  said  by  the  voice 
of  the  Lord,  '  Thou  art  Peter,  and  upon  this  rock  I  will 
build  my  church,  and  the  gates  of  hell  shall  not  prevail 
against  it.'  Peter,  thus  called  because  of  the  solidity 
of  the  rock,  which  is  Christ,  continues  to  strengthen  by 
his  prayers  the  unshaken  edifice  of  the  universal  Church, 
so  that  he  hastens  to  reform,  according  to  the  mle  of 
true  faith,  the  folly  of  those  who  fall  into  errour,  and 
sustains  those  who  consolidate  it  lest  the  gates  of  hell, 
that  is  to  say,  the  suggestion  of  wicked  spirits  and  the 
attacks  of  heretics,  should  succeed  in  breaking  the  unity 
of  the  Church."* 

Nicholas  then  pretends  to  be  convinced  that  when 

•  Nlcol.  Ep.  M  and  8d  In  Labbe's  Collection  of  the  Councils,  voL  viil.    Nat  Alex- 
and.  Hist.  Eccl.  Dissert.  Iv.  in  Stecul.  Iz. 


284  THE  PAPACY. 

Michael  sent  to  Rome,  it  was  to  fulfil  the  rule  estab- 
lished by  the  Fathers ;  that  "  without  the  consent  of 
the  Roman  see  and  the  Roman  pontiff,  nothing  should 
be  decided  in  controversies," 

This  principle  was  admitted  in  this  sense,  that  no. ques- 
tion of  faith  could  be  passed  upon  without  the  concur- 
rence of  the  Western  churches,  which  was  commonly- 
transmitted  through  the  chief  see  of  those  countries ; 
but  not  in  this  sense,  that  the  consent  of  the  individual 
see  of  Rome  or  of  its  bishop  was  absolutely  necessary. 
Nicholas  thus  relied  upon  an  errour,  and  improperly 
treated  it  as  admitted  by  the  Emperor  of  the  East. 
Upon  this  latter  point,  at  least,  he  knew  what  the  truth 
was.  He  next  attacks  the  election  of  Photius,  relying 
on  the  canons  of  the  Council  of  Sardica,  and  the  Decre- 
tals of  the  Popes  Celestine,  Leo,  and  Gelasius,  whom  he 
calls  doctors  of  the  catholic  faith.  He  might  have  con- 
sidered that  the  faith  was  not  in  question,  but  only  a 
mere  matter  of  discipline,  and  that  the  East  had  not, 
and  was  entitled  not  to  have,  upon  this  point,  the  same 
discipline  as  the  West.  Adrian  I.  had  forbidden  in  fu- 
ture to  raise  a  layman  to  the  episcopate.  Nicholas 
relies  on  this  as  a  precedent.  But  he  does  not  consider 
whether  Adrian  had  any  better  right  than  himself  to 
make  this  prohibition.  "  It  is  oub  will,"  Jie  adds, 
"  that  Ignatius  should  appear  before  our  envoys,  that 
he  may  declare  why  he  has  abandoned  his  people  with- 
out regarding  the  rules  of  our  predecessors  Leo  and 
Benedict All  the  proceedings  will  then  be  trans- 
mitted to  our  superior  authority,  that  we  may  judge  by 
Apostolic  authority  what  is  to  be  done,  in  order  that 
your  church,  which  is  now  so  shaken,  may  be  firm  and 
peaceful  for  the  future." 

Following  a  practice  which  was  already  established 
in  the  Roman  Church,  Nicholas  did  not  permit  his  du- 
ties as  supreme  pontiff  to  divert  his  mind  from  the  ma- 


THE   PAPACY.  285 

terial  interests  of  his  see ;  accordingly,  he  writes  to  the 
Emperor :  J'  Give  back  to  us  the  patrimony  of  Calabria 
and  that  of  Sicily  and  all  the  property  of  our  church, 
whereof  it  held  possession,  and  which  it  was  accustomed 
to  manage  by  its  own  attorneys  ;  for  it  is  unreasonable 
that  an  ecclesiastical  possession,  destined  for  the  light 
and  the  service  of  the  Church  of  God,  should  be  taken 
from  us  by  an  earthly  power." 

Behold  now  the  temporalities  already  invested  with 
religious  consecration ! 

"  It  is  our  will,"  adds  Nicholas,  (these  Avords  flow 
naturally  from- his  pen  upon  all  occasions,)  "It  is  our 
WILL  that  consecration  be  given  by  our  see  to  the  Arch- 
bishop of  Syracuse,  that  the  tradition  established  by  the 
Apostles  may  not  be  violated  in  our  time."  This  mo- 
tive is  truly  strange,  to  say  no  more  of  it,  Sicily  was 
made  subject  to  the  Roman  Patriarchate  in  the  foui-th 
century.  After  the  fall  of  the  empire,  that  region  had 
remained  within  the  dominions  of  the  Emperor  of  Con- 
stantinople. Now,  according  to  the  rule  admitted  time 
out  of  mind  in  the  Church,  the  ecclesiastical  divisions 
should  follow  every  change  in  the  civil  divisions.  By 
that  rule,  Syracuse  properly  depended  upon  Constanti- 
nople, and  not  Rome.  Nicholas  willed  it  otherwise, 
but  the  law  willed  it  thus,  and  the  Apostles  to  whom 
he  appealed  had  certainly  never  made  the  see  of  Syracuse 
subject  to  that  of  Rome.  The  letter  to  Photius  is  but 
an  abridgment  of  that  to  the  Emperor,  with  this  differ- 
ence, that  Nicholas  avoids  the  use  of  the  ambitious  ex- 
pressions we  have  quoted.  He  addressed  Photius  as  a 
simple  layman,  without  giving  him  any  episcopal  title, 
though  he  knew  him  to  have  been  lawfully  consecrated. 
This  affectation  was  big  with  this  idea  :  that  no  bishop 
could  bear  the  character  of  his  order,  except  by  the  con- 
sent of  the  Roman  Pontiff. 

The  earlier  popes  had  ne^er  used  such  language  either 


286  T'if^   PAPACY. 

to  the  emperors  or  to  their  brethren  the  bishops.  In 
cases  where  they  were  obliged  to  interfere  for  the  de- 
fence of  faith  or  of  discipline,  they  did  not  assume  the 
character  of  sovereign  umpires,  and  claimed  no  supreme 
authority  ;  they  appealed  to  tradition,  to  the  canons ; 
they  did  nothing  without  a  council,  and  did  not  mix 
things  temporal  with  things  spiritual.  We  have  noticed 
the  first  steps  of  the  Papacy  in  its  new  ways  and  its 
attempts  to  abolish  the  ancient  canon  law.  Nicholas  I. 
thought  himself  prepared  to  treat  these  new  pretensions 
as  ancient  and  incontestable  prerogatives.  He  thus  de- 
serves a  place  between  Adrian  I.,  the  true  founder  of 
the  modern  Papacy,  and  Gregory  VII.,  who  raised  it  to 
its  highest.  But  the  False  Decretals  were  unknown  in 
the  East.  Nicholas  I.,  instead  of  invoking  the  general 
principles  of  the  oecumenical  councils,  quoted  the  Decre- 
tals of  his  predecessors,  as  if  it  were  possible  for  those 
Bishops  of  Rome  to  establish  universal  laws.  Photius, 
in  his  second  letter,  reminded  him  of  the  true  principlea 
with  as  much  accuracy  as  moderation. 

The  legates  of  Nicholas  having  arrived  at  Constanti- 
nople, a  council  was  assembled  in  that  city,  in  which 
three  hundred  and  eighteen  bishops  took  part,  and 
which  the  legates  attended.  Ignatius  appeared  before 
that  assembly,  and  was  solemnly  deposed.  Every  one 
admits  this.  But  the  enemies  of  Photius  represent  these 
three  hundred  and  eighteen  bishops,  who  held  their  ses- 
sions publicly  and  before  large  crowds,  as  so  many  trai- 
tors sold  to  the  crown.  We  find  it  difficult  to  believe 
that  so  many  bishops  can  have  prostituted  their  con- 
sciences unchecked,  to  a  man,  by  any  remorse,  and  that 
the  people  did  not  protest  against  such  infamy.  It  is 
difficult  to  believe  in  this  connivance  of  three  hundred 
and  eighteen  bishops,  surrounded  by  a  crowd  of  clergy 
and  people.  It  seems  to  us  more  probable  that,  in  spite 
of  his  virtues,  Ignatius  had.  been  raised  to  the  Patri- 


THE  PAPACY.  287 

archate  less  by  election  than  by  a  powerful  influence, 
and  because  of  his  noble  blood,  whereof  he  was  indeed 
reproached,  and  that  he  was  implicated,  involuntarily, 
no  doubt,  in  certain  political  intrigues.  We  see  no 
reason  to  doubt  the  purity  of  his  intentions ;  but  may  he 
not  have  been  the  tool  of  ambitious  men  ?  was  it  not 
owing  to  their  baneful  influence  that  he  did  not  imitate 
the  magnanimity  and  the  truly  bishop-like  self-sacrifice 
of  a  Chrysostom  ? 

Ignatius  was  a  second  time  deposed  by  the  Council 
of  Constantinople  in  861.  He  appealed  to  the  Pope ; 
but  his  petition  was  signed  by  only  six  metropolitans 
and  fifteen  bishops. 

The  legates  returned  to  Rome.  Shortly  after  their 
arrival,  an  imperial  ambassador  brought  the  transactions 
of  the  council  and  a  letter  from  Photius,  thus  con- 
ceived : 

"  To  the  very  holy  among  all  and  most  sacred  brother 
and  co-minister,  Nicholas,  Pope  of  ancient  Rome,  Pho- 
tius, Bishop  of  Constantinople,  the  new  Rome. 

"  Nothing  is  more  honourable  and  precious  than  char- 
ity ;  this  is  the  general  opinion  confirmed  by  Holy  Scrip- 
tures. By  her  that  which  is  separated  becomes  united  ; 
contentions  are  ended  ;  that  which  is  already  united  and 
closely  tied,  becomes  united  more  closely  still ;  she 
closes  all  doors  to  seditions  and  intestine  quarrels ;  for 
'  charity  thinketh  no  evil,  sufiereth  long,  hopeth  all 
things,  endureth  all  things,  and,'  according  to  the  blessed 
Paul,  'never  faileth.'  She  reconeileth  guilty  servants 
with  their  masters,  insisting,  in  mitigation  of  the  fault, 
upon  their  similar  natures ;  she  teaches  servants  to  bear 
meekly  the  anger  of  their  masters,  and  consoles  them 
for  the  inequality  of  their  state  by  the  example  of  those 
who  suffered  the  like  with  them.  She  softens  the  anger 
of  parents  against  their  children,  and  against  their  mur- 
murs ;    she  makes  parental   love  a  powerful  weapon. 


288  THE  PAPACY. 

which  comes  to  their  aid  and  prevents  in  families  those 
strifes  from  which  nature  shrinks.  She  easily  checks 
dissensions  between  friends,  and  persuades  them  to 
kindly  and  friendly  intercourse.  As  for  those  who  have 
the  same  thoughts  concerning  God  and  divine  things, 
although  distance  separate  them,  and  they  never  behold 
each  other,  she  unites  them  and  identifies  them  in 
thought,  and  makes  true  friends  of  them,  and  if  per- 
chance one  of  them  should  too  inconsiderately  raise 
accusations  against  the  other,  she  cures  the  evil,  sets  all 
things  to  right,  and  i-ivets  the  bond  of  union." 

This  picture  of  the  benefits  of  charity  was  intended 
for  Nicholas,  who  had  not  practised  it  toward  Photius, 
but  had  shown  an  excessive  eagerness  to  rebuke  him. 
The  Patriarch  of  Constantinople  continues : 

*'  It  is  this  charity  that  has  made  me  bear  without 
difiiculty  the  reproaches  that  your  paternal  Holiness  has 
hurled  at  ine  like  darts  ;  that  has  forbidden  me  to  con- 
sider your  words  as  the  results  of  anger  or  of  a  soul 
greedy  of  insults  and  enmities ;  that  on  the  contrary 
has  made  me  regard  them  as  the  proof  of  an  affection 
which  cannot  dissimulate,  and  of  a  scrupulous  zeal  for 
ecclesiastical  discipline,  a  zeal  that  would  have  every 
thing  perfect.  For  if  charity  will  not  permit  us  even  to 
consider  evil  as  wrong,  how  shall  she  permit  us  to  call 
any  thing  wrong  ?  Such  is  the  nature  of  true  charity, 
that  she  will  even  regard  as  an  intended  benefit  that 
which  causes  us  pain.  But  since  there  is  no  reason 
why  truth  should  not  be  spoken  between  brothers  or 
fathers  and  sons,  (for  what  is  there  more  friendly  than 
truth  ?)  let  me  speak  and  write  to  you  with  perfect  free- 
dom, not  from  a  desire  to  contradict  you,  but  with  intent 
to  defend  myself. 

"  Perfect  as  you  are,  you  should  have  considered  at  the 
outset  that  it  was  quite  against  our  will  that  we  were 
placed  under  this  yoke,  and  therefore  have  had  pity  upon 


THE  PAPACY.  289 

us  instead  of  rebuking  us  ;  you  should  not  have  despised 
us,  but  have  had  compassion  on  our  grief.  Indeed,  we 
owe  pity  and  kindness  and  not  insult  and  contempt  to 
those  who  have  suffered  violence.  But  we  have  suffered 
violence,  how  great,  God  alone,  who  knows  the  most 
secret  thmgs,  can  know  ;  we  have  been  detained  against 
our  wishes,  we  have  been,  watched  narrowly,  surrounded 
with  spies  like  a  culprit ;  we  have  received  votes  against 
our  will,  we  have  been  created  a  bishop  in  spite  of  our 
tears,  our  complaints,  our  affliction,  our  despair.  Every 
one  knows  it ;  for  these  things  were  not  done  in  secret, 
and  the  exceeding  violence  to  which  I  have  been  sub- 
jected was  so  public  as  to  be  known  of  all.  What ! 
should  not  those  who  have  endured  such  violence  be 
pitied  and  consoled  as  much  as  possible,  rather  than  be 
attacked,  evil-entreated,  and  laden  with  insults  ?  I  have 
lost  a  sweet  and  tranquil  life ;  I  have  lost  my  glory, 
(since  there  be  who  love  earthly  glory  ;)  I  have  lost  my 
precious  leisure,  my  intercourse  so  pure  and  delightful 
with  my  friends,  that  intercourse  whence  grief,  double- 
dealing,  and  recrimination  were  excluded.  No  one  hated 
me  then  ;  and  I.  ...  I  accused,  I  hated  no  one,  neither 
at  home  nor  abroad.  I  had  nothing  ^against  those  who 
had  the  least  intercourse  with  me,  and  nothing  a  fortiori 
against  ray  friends.  I  have  never  caused  such  pain  to 
any  one  as  that  I  should  reap  an  outrage  from  it,  save 
in  those  dangers  to  which  I  have  been  exposed  for  the 
cause  of  religion.*  N"or  has  any  one  so  seriously  offended 
rae  as  to  drive  me  to  insult  him.  All  were  good  to  me. 
As  for  my  conduct,  I  must  be  silent  on  that  point ;  but 
every  one  proclaims  what  that  has  been.  My  friends 
loved  me  better  than  their  parents ;  as  for  my  parents, 
they  loved  me  more  than  the  other  members  of  the  fam- 
ily, and  knew  it  was  I  who  loved  them  best." 

*  Photiug  here  alludes  to  the  reaistance  he  bad  made  to  the  iconodastio  emperors 
and  their  partisans. 


290 


THE   PAPACY. 


The  enemies  of  Photlus  themselves  are  forced  to  admit- 
that  his  life  was  that  of  a  man  devoted  to  study ;  that 
as  first  secretary  of  state  he  possessed  the  greatest 
honom-s  to  which  he  could  have  aspired.  How  shall  such 
admissions  be  reconciled  with  that  immoderate  lust  after 
the  episcopate  which  they  attribute  to  him  ?  We  are 
nearer  the  truth  in  accepting  his  letters  as  the  actual 
expression  of  his  sentiments.  He  resisted  as  best  he 
could  his  promotion,  and  it  was  only  the  will  of  the  Em- 
peror and  that  of  Bardas  that  forced  him  to  accept  a  see 
which  no  one  could  fill  better  than  himself. 

Photius  having  drawn  a  comparison,  as  true  as  it  is 
eloquent  between  his  former  scholar's  life  and  the  new 
life  that  had  been  imposed  upon  him,  thus  continues  : 

"  But  why  repeat  what  I  have  already  written  ?  If  I 
was  believed,  then  I  was  wronged  in  not  being  pitied  ; 
if  I  was  not  believed,  I  was  no  less  wronged  in  that  my 
words  were  not  believed  when  I  spoke  the  truth.  Upon 
either  side,  then,  I  am  unfortunate.  I  am  reproached 
where  I  expect  consolation  and  encouragement ;  grief  is 
thus  added  to  grief.  I  hear  said  to  me,  '  Men  ought  not 
to  have  wronged  you.'  Then  say  so  to  those  who  have 
wronged  me.  '  They  ought  not  to  have  done  you  vio- 
lence.' The  maxim  is  excellent ;  but  who  deserves  your 
reproaches  if  not  those  who  did  me  violence  ?  Who 
should  be  pitied  if  not  those  to  whom  violence  has  been 
done  ?  If  any  one  left  in  peace  those  who  did  violence 
in  order  to  attack  those  who  sufiered  it,  I  might  have 
hoped  from  your  justice  that  you  would  condemn  him. 
The  canons  of  the  Church,  it  is  said,  have  been  violated 
because  you  are  raised  from  the  rank  of  a  layman  to  the 
highest  office  of  the  ministry.  But  who  has  violated 
them?  He  who  has  done  violence,  or  he  who  has  been 
compelled  by  force  and  against  his  will?  But  you 
should  have  resisted!  How  far?  I  did  resist  even 
more  than  necessary.     If  I  had  not  feared  to  excite  still 


THE  PAPACY.  291 

greater  storms,  I  would  have  resisted  even  unto  death. 
But  what  are  these  canons  that  are  said  to  have  been  vio- 
lated ?  Canons  never  to  this  day  received  by  the  Church 
of  Constantinople.  Canons  can  only  be  transgressed 
when  they  ought  to  be  observed ;  but  when  they  have 
not  been  handed  down  to  us  there  can  be  no  sin  in  not 
obfeerving  them.  I  have  said  enough — even  more  than 
was  expedient — for  I  wish  neither  to  defend  nor  justify 
myself  How  should  I  wish  to  defend  myself,  when  the 
only  thing  I  desire  is  to  be  delivered  from  the  tempest, 
and  to  be  relieved  of  the  burden  that  bears  me  down  ? 
It  is  to  this  degree  that  I  have  coveted  this  see,  and 
only  to  this  degree  do  I  desire  to  retain  it.  But  if  the 
episcopal  chair  is  a  burden  to  you  to-day,  it  was  not  thus 
at  the  commencement.  I  took  it  against  my  will,  and 
against  my  will  do  I  remain  in  it.  The  proof  is  that 
violence  was  done  to  me  from  the  first ;  that  from 
the  first  I  desired  as  I  do  this  day  to  leave  it.  But 
though  some  polite  things  had  to  be  written  to  me,  it 
was  impossible  to  write  to  me  with  kindness  and  to 
praise  me.  We  have  received  all  that  has  been  said  to 
us  with  joy,  and  with  thanks  to  God  who  governs  the 
Church.  It  has  been  said  to  me,  '  You  have  been  taken 
from  the  laity ;  that  is  not  a  laudable  act ;  therefore  are  we 
undecided  and  have  deferred  our  consent  until  after  the 
return  of  our  apocrisiaries.'*  It  had  been  better  to  say. 
We  will  not  consent  at  all ;  we  do  not  approve ;  we  do 
not  accept,  and  never  will.    The  man  who  offered  himself 

•  The  Abb6  Jager  In  his  lUstory  of  Photiun,  Book  IIT.  page  64,  ed.  1854,  has 
taken  this  analysis  of  Nicholas's  letter  as  an  assertion  of  Photius.  He  therefore 
adds  in  a  note,  A  new  falsehood  I  Upon  the  same  page  he  had  just  before  written. 
An  impudent  falnehood  !  This  is  a  new  lie  !  to  characterize  the  affirmations  of 
Photius,  saying  that  he  remained  in  the  bishopric  against  his  will,  and  that  his 
only  ambition  was  to  quit  it.  These  notes  are  unworthy  of  a  writer  who  respects 
himself.  Moreover,  before  reproaching  Photius  for  a  third  lie,  that  writer  should 
have  taken  a  little  trouble  to  understand  his  language ;  he  then  would  not  have 
taken  for  a  personal  assertion  of  Photius,  the  analysis  of  the  Pope's  letter,  who  had 
Indeed  said  he  would  postpone  his  consent  until  the  return  of  his  envoys. 


292 


THE  PAPACY. 


for  this  see,  who  has  bought  the  episcopate,  who  never 
received  an  honest  vote,  is  a  bad  man  in  all  respects. 
Leave  the  episcopate  and  the  office  of  pastor.  One  who 
should  have  written  me  thus,  would  have  written  agree- 
ably, however  falsely.  But  was  it  necessary  that  one 
who  had  suffered  so  much  on  entering  the  episcopate, 
should  suffer  again  in  leaving  it?  That  he  who  had 
been  pushed  violently  into  that  office,  should  be  pushed 
from  it  with  still  greater  violence  ?  One  who  has  such 
sentiments,  such  thoughts,  must  care  very  little  to  repel 
calumny  intended  to  deprive  him  of  the  episcopal  chair. 
But  enough  upon  this  subject." 

In  the  remainder  of  his  letter  Photius  explains  at  great 
length  that  one  Church  should  not  condemn  the  usages 
of  another,  provided  they  are  not  contrary  either  to 
the  faith  or  to  the  canons  of  tlie  general  councils.  He 
justifies  his  ordination  by  this  rule,  and  by  the  example 
of  his  holy  predecessors,  Nectarius,  Tarasius,  Nicephorus ; 
and  also  that  of  St.  Ambrose,  St.  Gregory,  father  of  the 
theologian,  and  Thalassius  of  Caesarea.  He  shows  to 
Nicholas  that  in  the  last  council  held  in  presence  of 
his  legates,  several  disciplinary  rules  suggested  by  him 
were  adopted  because  they  appeared  useful.  He  praises 
the  Pope  for  his  love  of  the  maintenance  of  the  canons, 
and  congratulates  him  for  it  the  more  that,  having  the 
primacy^  his  example  was  the  more  powerful.  He  takes 
occasion  from  this  to  inform  him,  in  conclusion,  that  a 
large  number  of  criminals  escape  to  Rome,  under  pre- 
text of  making  a  pilgrimage,  to  hide  there  their  crimes 
under  a  false  appearance  of  piety.  He  begs  him,  there- 
fore, to  observe  upon  this  point  the  canons  which  pre. 
scribe  to  each  bishop  that  he  shall  receive  to  communion 
only  those  who  can  show  letters  of  recommendation 
from  their  own  bishop. 

In  all  ages  Rome  has  been  thus  reproached  for  serving 
as  a  refuge  for  hypocritical  criminals.     The  Church  of 


THE  PAPACY.  293 

France  wrote*  frequently  to  the  Popes  in  the  same  strain 
as  Photius  did  upon  this  occasion. 

This  letter  of  the  Patriarch  could  not  be  palatable  to 
Nicholas,  for  under  cover  of  polished  and  elegant 
phrases  it  carried  very  just  lessons.  Photius  does 
not  use  one  harsh  word.  He  does  not  even  adopt 
his  honorary  title  of  oecumenical  Patriarch ;  he  recog- 
nizes the  primacy  of  the  see  of  Rome;  but  he  does 
not.  flatter  the  ambition  of  the  new  Papacy,  he  does 
not  bow  before  it,  and  his  gentleness  does  not  exclude 
firmness.  Such  an  adversary  was  more  dangerous  to 
Nicholas  than  a  violent  and  ambitious  man.  Instead  of 
disputing  with  him  the  rights  he  claimed  over  certain 
churches  of  the  Patriarchate  of  Constantinople,  he  says  to 
him :  "  We  would  have  yielded  them  to  you  if  it  had  de- 
pended upon  us ;  but  as  it  is  a  question  of  countries  and 
boundaries,  it  concerns  the  state.  For  my  part,  I  should 
like  not  only  to  render  to  others  what  belongs  to  them, 
but  even  to  yield  a  part  of  the  ancient  dependencies  of 
this  see.  I  should  be  greatly  obliged  to  any  one  who 
would  relieve  me  of  a  portion  of  my  burden." 

No  better  reply  than  this  could  have  been  made  to  a 
Pope  who  only  thought  of  extending  his  power  by  every 
means.  But  Nicholas  did  not  profit  by  this  lesson, 
which  was  as  just  as  it  was  moderate.  He  would  be- 
lieve neither  his  legates  nor  the  acts  of  the  council 
which  were  presented  to  him.  He  even  declared  to  the 
ambassador  Leo,  who  had  been  sent  to  him,  that  he  had 
not  sent  his  legates  to  depose  Ignatius,  or  to  concur  in 
the  promotion  of  Photius ;  that  he  had  not  consented, 
and  never  would  consent  to  either. 

Nicholas  pretended  thus  to  judge  of  the  legitimacy 
of  bishops,  forgetting  that  the  canons  only  gave  him 
the  choice  to  enter  into  communion  with  the  one  or  the 
other.  It  was  well  understood  that  before  entering  into 
relations  with  Photius,  he  must  have  positive  informa- 


294  THE  PAPACY. 

tion  as  to  the  legitimacy  of  his  election  ;  but,  according 
to  the  laws  of  the  Church,  that  legitimacy  did  not  de- 
pend upon  the  Papal  will,  but  upon  the  judgment  pro- 
nounced upon  Ignatius,  and  the  regularity  of  the  elec- 
tion of  Photius.  A  council  of  three  hundred  and 
eighteen  bishops  had  publicly  approved  that  election, 
and  the  deposition  of  Ignatius,  The  legates  had  wit- 
nessed the  proceedings ;  they  gave  evidence  to  what 
they  had  seen  and  heard ;  it  was  certainly  enough,  it 
should  seem,  to  decide  Nicholas  to  grant  his  communion 
to  one  whose  learning  and  honourable  character  made 
him  well  worthy  of  the  episcopate.  But  in  taking  sides 
with  Ignatius,  Nicholas  was  doing  an  act  of  sovereign 
authority.  This  prospect  flattered  his  tendencies  too 
much  to  permit  him  to  eschew  it.  He  therefore  assem- 
bled the  clergy  of  Rome  to  solemnly  disown  his  legates. 
He  subsequently  wrote  to  the  Emperor,  to  Photius,  and 
to  the  whole  Eastern  Church,  letters  which  are  monuments 
of  his  pride.  We  must  give  them,  that  the  doctrine 
they  contain  may  be  compared  with  that  of  the  first 
eight  centuries,  and  that  a  conviction  may  thus  be  ar- 
rived at,  that  the  Papacy  had  abandoned  the  latter,  in 
order  to  substitute  for  it  an  autocratic  system  which 
the  Eastern  Church  could  not  accept.  *At  the  begin- 
ning of  his  letter  to  the  Emperor  Michael,  he  takes  it  for 
granted  that  this  prince  has  addressed  himself  "  to  the 
holy,  Catholic,  and  Apostolic  Roman  Church,  chief 
(head)  of  all  the  churches,  which  follows  in  all  its  acts 
the  pure  authority  of  the  Holy  Fathers,"  for  the  pur- 
pose of  being  informed  what  he  should  think  in  ecclesi- 
astical matters. 

Nicholas  neglected  no  occasion  of  repeating  these 
high-sounding  phras<!S,  which  disprove  themselves,  for 
the  Fathers  were"  completely  ignorant  of  them.  Com- 
ing to  the  cause  of  Ignatius,  he  complains  "that  con- 

•  Miobol.  EpUt.  6  and  0. 


THE  PAPACY.  295 

trary  to  his  orders  a  sentence  had  been  pronounced 
against  Ignatius ;  not  only  had  they  omitted  to  do  what 
he  had  prescribed,  but  had  done  just  the  opposite. 
Therefore,  he  adds,  since  you  sustain  Photius,'  and  re- 
ject Ignatius,  without  the  judgment  of  our  Apostolate^ 
we  would  have  you  to  know  that  we  do  not  receive  Pho- 
tius, nor  condemn  the  patriarch  Ignatius." 

This  is  certainly  talking  like  a  master.  He  then  is  at 
pains  to  find  differences  of  detail  between  the  promotion 
of  Nectarius  and  Ambrose,  and  that  of  Photius.  But 
these  differences,  even  supposing  they  were  such  as  he 
makes  them,  were  not  of  a  nature  to  override  a  positive 
enactment,  had  it  been  considered  absolute  and  suscep- 
tible of  no  exceptions. 

His  letter  to  the  very  wise  man  Photius  commences 
in  this  solemn  manner  : 

"After  our  Lord  and  Redeemer  Jesus  Christ,  who 
was  very  God  before  all  ages,  had  condescended  to  be 
born  of  the  Virgin  for  our  redemption,  and  to  appear 
as  very  man  in  the  world,  he  committed  to  the  blessed 
Peter,  prince  of  the  Apostles,  the  power  to  bind  and 
loose  in  heaven  and  upon  earth,  and  the  right  to  open 
the  gates  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven  ;  he  condescended 
to  establish  his  holy  Church  upon  the  solidity  of  that 
Apostle's  faith,  according  to  this  faithful  saying, '  Verily, 
I  say  unto  thee,  thou  art  Peter,  and  upon  this  rock  I  will 
build  my  Church,  and  the  gates  of  hell  shall  not  prevail 
against  it :  and  I  will  give  unto  thee  the  keys  of  the 
kingdom  of  heaven  :  and  whatsoever  thou  shalt  bind 
on  earth  shall  be  bound  in  heaven,  and  whatsoever  thou 
shalt  loose  on  earth  shall  be  loosed  in  heaven.'  " 

Such  is  the  great  argument  on  which  the  modern 
Papacy  has  always  relied.  It  openly  rejects  the  catho- 
lic and  traditional  interpretation  of  these  divine  words; 
it  makes  of  rights  granted  to  all  the  Apostles  in  common 


296  THE  PAPACY. 

an  exclusive  and  personal  right  in  favour  of  Saint  Peter ; 
it  takes  its  stand,  contrary  to  all  ecclesiastical  law,  and 
in  virtue  of  a  gratuitous  sacrilege,  as  sole  inheritor  of 
chimerical  prerogatives,  and  pretends  upon  these  lying 
and  fragile  bases  to  establish  the  fabric  of  its  universal 
autocracy.  Such  was  the  claim  that  Nicholas  opposed 
to  Photius  ;  and  it  is  now  said  that  this  Patriarch,  who 
was  perfectly  acquainted  with  ecclesiastical  antiquity, 
ought  to  have  submitted  to  such  authority  !  His  duty 
was  to  protest  as  he  did  ;  and  would  to  God  that  all  the 
Bishops  of  the  Catholic  Church  had  imitated  his  cour- 
age, as  firm  as  it  was  pure  and  moderate ! 

This  is  Nicholas's  commentary  upon  the  words  of  the 
Gospel  he  had  quoted  :  "  According  to  this  promise,  by 
the  cement  of  the  holy  Apostolic  institution,  the  founda- 
tions of  the  edifice,  composed  of  precious  stones,  began 
to  arise  ;  and,  thanks  to  Divine  clemency,  and  by  the 
zeal  of  the  builders,  and  the  solicitude  of  the  Apostolic 
authority,  to  arise  to  the  summit,  to  endure  forever, 
liaving  nothing  to  fear  from  the  violence  of  the  winds. 
The  blessed  Peter,  prince  of  the  Apostles,  and  door- 
keeper of  the  celestial  kingdom,  merited  the  primacy  in 
that  edifice,  as  all  who  are  orthodox  know,  and  as  we 
have  just  declared."  No  one,  in  fact,  among  those  who 
are  orthodox  denies  the  primacy  of  St.  Peter ;  but  did 
that  primacy  give  him  supreme  authority  ?  No,  replies 
Catholic  tradition.  Yes,  answers  Nicholas,  who  thus 
continues:  "After  him  (St.  Peter)  his  vicars^  serving 
God  with  sincerity,  and  delivered  from  the  shadow  of 
darkness  that  hinders  from  walking  in  the  right  way, 
have  received  in  a  liigher  sense  the  care  of  pasturing 
the  sheep  of  the  Lord,  and  have  carefully  accomplished 
this  duty.  Among  them  the  mercy  of  God  Almighty 
has  condescended  to  include  our  littleness  ;  but  we 
tremble  at  the  thought  that  we  shall  answer,^?/**^  of  all ^ 


THE  PAPACY.  297 

and  for  all,  to  Jesus  Christ,  when  he  shall  call  each  one 
to  account  for  his  works. 

"  Now,  as  all  believers  come  for  their  doctrine  to  this 
holy  Roman  Church,  which  is  the  chief  (head)  of  all  the 
churches ;  as  they  ask  of  her  what  is  the  purity  of  the 
faith ;  as  those  who  are  worthy,  and  who  are  ransomed 
by  the  grace  of  God,  ask  of  her  absolution  for  their 
crimes  ;  it  is  our  duty,  who  have  received  the  charge  of 
her,  to  be  attentive,  to  keep  constant  watch  over  the 
flock  of  the  Lord,  the  more  that  there  are  those  who 
are  ever  eager  to  tear  it  with  cruel  fangs.  ...  It 
is  apparent  that  the  holy  Roman  Church,  through  the 
blessed  Apostle  Peter,  prince  of  the  Apostles,  who  was 
thought  worthy  to  receive  from  the  mouth  of  the  Lord 
the  ])rimacy  of  the  churches,  is  the  chief  (head)  of  all 
the  churches  ;  that  it  is  to  her  that  all  must  apply  to 
know  the  just  course,  and  the  order  to  be  followed  in 
all  useful  things,  and  in  the  ecclesiastical  institutions, 
which  she  maintains  in  an  inviolable  and  incontestable 
manner,  according  to  the  canonical  and  synodical  laws 
of  the  holy  Fathers.  Hence  it  follows  that  whatsoever  is 
rejected  by  the  rectors  of  this  see — by  their  full  author- 
ity— should  be  rejected,  any  particular  custom  notwith- 
standing ;  and  that  whatsoever  is  ordered  by  them 
should  be  accepted  firmly  and  without  heytation." 

Thus  Nicholas  opposed  his  sovereign  authority  to 
the  laws,  followed  from  all  antiquity  by  the  Church, 
which  Photius  had  rehearsed  to  him.  He  next  en- 
deavours to  find  difierences  of  detail  in  the  elections 
of  Nectarius,  Ambrose,  Tarasius,  and  that  of  Photius. 
He  succeeds  no  better  upon  this  point  than  in  his  letter 
to  the  Emperor  Michael,  and  he  silently  passes  over  the 
other  examples  mentioned  by  Photius. 

In  his  letters  to  the  Patriarchs  and  to  the  faithful  of 
the  East,*  Nicholas  sets  forth  like  views  upon  his  autoc- 

*  Nichol.  Eplat.  1  and  4. 


/ 


/ 
/ 


298 


THE  PAPACY. 


racy.  He  commands  the  Patriarchs  of  Alexandria,  An- 
tioch,  and  Jerusalem  to  make  known  to  their  faithful 
the  decisions  of  the  Apostolic  see. 

Ignatius,  by  his  appeal  to  Nicholas  from  the  judg- 
ment passed  upon  him,  had  too  much  flattered  the  pride 
of  the  Pope.  To  prove  this  it  will  be  sufficient  to  quote 
the  superscription  of  his  appeal  papei-s. 

"Ignatius,  oppressed  by  tyranny,  etc.,  to  our  most 
holy  Lord,  apd  most  blessed  President,  Patriarch  of  all 
sees,  successor  of  St.  Peter,  Prince  of  the  Apostles, 
Nicholas,  oecumenical  Pope,  and  to  his  most  holy  bish- 
ops ;  and  to  the  most  wise,  universal,  Roman  Church."* 

St.  Gregory  the  Great  would  have  rejected  such  titles 
as  diabolical  inventions,  as  w^e  have  already  seen  by  his 
letters  to  John  the  Faster  ;  but  the  Papacy  of  St.  Gre- 
gory the  Great  was  no  more ;  it  had  given  place  to  a 
politico-ecclesiastical  institution,  with  only  power  for  its 
aim.  Ignatius,  so  long  as  he  flattered  the  ambition  of 
Nicholas,  could  not  but  be  right  in  his  eyes.  Photius, 
who  held  to  the  ancient  doctrine,  and  looked  upon  the 
Bishop  of  Rome  simply  as  first  bishop,  without  granting 
him  any  personal  authority,  could  not  but  be  wrong. 
Accordingly,  without  further  question,  Nicholas  pro- 
nounced anathema  against  him,  in  a  council  which  he  held 
at  Rome  at  the  commencement  of  the  year  863.  "  We 
declare  Mm,'"  he  says,  "  deprived  of  all  sacerdotal  honour 
and  of  every  clerical  function  by  the  authority  of  God 
Almighty,  of  the  Apostles  St.  Peter  and  St.  Paul,  of  all 
the  saints,  of  the  six  general  councils,  and  by  the  judg- 
ment which  the  Holy  Spirit  has  pronounced  by  us.""] 
He  ventured  in  the  sentence  to  accuse  Photius  himself 
of  the  persecutions  that  Ignatius  had  endured.     This 

♦  See  Libel.  Ignat.  In  Labbe's  Collection,  vol.  viii.  Many  scholars  doubt  the 
authenticity  of  this  document.  Notwithstanding  his  friendly  relations  with  Rome, 
we  can  scarcely  believe  that  Ignatius  could  have  addressed  the  Pope  in  the  form 
above  quoted. 

t  Labl>e's  Collection  of  Councils,  voL  viii. 


THE   PAPACY.  299 

was  a  calumny  drawn  from  the  denunciations  of  the  ene- 
mies of  Photius,  and  since  repeated  by  all  the  Romish 
writers  who  havfe  spoken  of  the  discussion  between  this 
Patriarch  and  Nicholas.*  It  is  apparent,  moreover,  from 
all  the  Pope  did,  that  he  had  predetermind  to  hear  noth- 
ing in  favour  of  Photius,  in  the  way  of  proof  or  argu- 
ment. To  him  a  few  monks,  partisans  of  Ignatius,  who 
had  come  to  Rome,  were  better  authority  than  a  council 
of  three  hundred  and  eighteen  bishops,  beside  a  large 
number  of  ecclesiastics  and  monks,  which  held  its  ses- 
sions in  presence  of  an  immense  concourse  of  people.  It 
must  indeed  be  admitted  that  the  conduct  of  Nicholas 
must  have  had  an  altogether  different  motive  than  the 
defence  of  Ignatius  or  the  justice  of  his  cause.  He  be- 
lieved himself  the  depositary  of  divine  authority^  and 
the  organ  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

It  was  in  this  character  that  he  claimed  all  his  rights. 
But  the  general  councils  to  which  he  appealed  to  sup- 
port his  condemnation  had  ordained  that  a  bishop  should 
only  be  tried  and  condemned  by  his  brethren  of  the 

*  We  have  not  noticed  all  that  Is  related  by  the  enemies  of  Photius,  In  respect  to 
the  sufferings  of  Ignatius.  First.  Because  these  details  have  nothing  to  do  with  the 
principal  question.  Secondly.  Because  these  recitals  are  evidently  exaggerated. 
Thirdly,  Because  history  does  not  hold  Photius  responsible  for  them.  Did  not  Ignar 
tlus  draw  upon  himself  the  hatred  of  the  Emperor  and  Bardas  by  his  imprudent  zeal 
by  his  proceedings  respecting  Gregory  of  Syracuse,  and  by  his  sentiments  hostile  to 
the  government  ?  These  are  questions  upon  which  even  the  recitals  of  his  partisans 
could  not  establish  his  innocence.  We  may  even  say  that  these  intemperate  recitals 
Injure  him  by  their  very  exaggeration.  His  refusal  to  resign  provoked  the  violence 
of  the  court.  We  do  not  deny  it,  although  the  details  of  this  violence  are  very  diflB- 
cult  to  be  admitted  completely.  But  was  Photius  an  accomplice  In  this  violence? 
We  reply  no,  first,  because  impartial  historians  in  no  manner  attribute  it  to  him, 
and  because  he  himself  protested,  in  his  lettei  s  to  Bardas,  against  the  violence  with 
which  his  adversaries  were  treated.  These  letters,  well  worthy  of  a  great  and  holy 
bishop,  may  be  found  among  his  correspondence.  Shall  it  be  only  in  the  case  of 
Photius  that  familiar  letters  are  Incompetent  evidence  ?  Romish  historians  pretend 
that  his  letters  to  Bardas  were  written  hypocritically.  But  the  impartial  and  inde- 
pendent writers  who  confirm  the  evidence  of  those  letters,  were  they  too  hypocrites  f 
Is  it  credible  that  only  the  enemies  of  Photius  had  the  privilege  of  telling  the  truth 
when  speaking  of  him  ?  If  men  were  to  be  judged  by  the  evidence  of  their  eqerpies 
only,  who  then  would  ever  be  innocent  ?  By  this  system  one  might  easily  prove 
taat  Christ  himself  was  worthy  of  death. 


300  THE   PAPACY. 

same  province,  and  they  had  not  granted  any  more  an- 
thority  to  the  Bishop  of  Rome  than  to  the  others.  As 
for  the  pretensions  of  Nicholas  to  divine  authority,  we 
know  what  they  amount  to  ;  and  his  reasoning  is  worthy 
of  the  thesis  he  would  prove. 

The  Emperor  Michael,  when  he  learned  the  decision 
of  the  Council  of  Rome,  wrote  to  Nicholas  a  letter  tilled 
with  threats  and  contumely,  (a.d.  864,)  which,  of  course, 
the  enemies  of  Photius  attribute  to  him,  alleging  that 
the  Emperor  only  thought  of  his  pleasures.     This  is  to 
them  a  conclusive  argument,     Nicholas  replied  to  the 
Emperor  in  a  very  long  letter  full  of  apocryphal  state- 
ments, false  logic,  and  the  grossest  historical  mistakes. 
We  learn  from  this  letter  that  the  Emperor  had  met  the 
Papal  pretensions  with  a  host  of  facts,  which  reduced 
the  primacy  of  the  Bishop  of  Rome  to  its  just  propor- 
tions.     Nicholas  discusses  them  superficially ;  his  rea- 
sonings  are   false,  and   he   confounds   some   incidental 
proceedings  with  the  recognition  of  the  absolute  author- 
ity which  he  claimed.     To  give  an  instance  of  his  so- 
phistry :  '*  Observe,"  he  writes,  "  that  neither  the  Coun- 
cil of  Nicea  nor  any  other  council,  granted  any  privilege 
to  the  Roman  Church,  which  knew  that  in  the  person 
of  Peter  she  icas  entitled  thoroughly  to  the  rights  of  all 
power,  ayid  that  she  had  received  the  government  of  all 
the  sheep  of  Christ^*     He  rests  that  doctrine  upon  the 
evidence  of  Pope  Boniface.     "  If,"  he  continues,  "  the 
decrees  of  the  Council  of  Nicea  be  carefully  examined, 
it  will  certainly  appear  that  this  council  granted  no  en- 
largement to  the  Roman  Church,  but  rather  took  exam- 
ple from  her,  in  what  it  granted  to  the  Church  of  Alex- 
andria."    Nicholas  does  not  add  that  the  council  had 
looked  upon  the  authority  of  the  Roman  see  over  the 
Buburbican  churches  as  resting  only  on  usage,  and  not 

*  Qus  in  Petro  noverat  earn  toUus  Jura  potestatU  pleniter  meruisse  et  cunctarum 
Chrlstl  ovlum  regimen  accepisse. 


THE  PAPACY.  301 

on  divine  right ;  nor  that  if  a  similar  authority  to  that 
of  Rome  was  given  to  the  Alexandrian  Church,  it  fol- 
lowed that  there  was  nothing  divine  in  that  authority, 
since  a  council  could  not  give  by  divine  authority. 

It  is  with  like  force  of  reasoning  that  Nicholas  en- 
deavours to  answer  all  the  objections  of  his  adversary 
against  the  Papal  autocracy. 

He  concludes  with  a  distinction  between  the  two  do- 
mains in  which  the  priesthood  and  the  empire  should 
respectively  act.  If  Michael  needed  to  be  taught  that 
he  had  no  right  over  ecclesiastical  things,  should  not  the 
Papacy  have  undei*stood  in  like  manner  that  it  had  no 
right  over  temporal  things  ? 

The  Eastern  Church  was  in  duty  bound  to  protest 
against  the  attempts  of  Nicholas.  They  were  contrary 
to  the  ancient  law.  The  Ultramontanes  are  obliged  to 
admit  this,  though  indirectly.  A  writer,*  who  professes 
to  write  the  history  of  Photius,  but  only  accepts  as  true 
the  assertions  of  the  declared  enemies  of  this  Patriarch, 
has  been  forced,  by  the  weight  of  evidence,  to  speak  as 
follows  : 

"  Schism  has  thrown  a  clear  light  upon  the  doctrines 
respecting  the  primacy  of  the  holy  see.  Never  were 
its  prerogatives  better  established  than  in  the  struggle 
of  Pope  Nicholas.  ,  against  the  Photian  schismatics." 
Is  it  credible  that  before  the  ninth  century  no  occasion 
had  presented  to  call  forth  these  prerogatives,  if  they 
had  in  fact  belonged  to  the  Roman  see  ?  The  facts  we 
have  already  related  sufficiently  answer  that  question. 
Questions  of  far  greater  moment  than  the  deposition  of 
a  bishop  had  certainly  been  discussed  between  the  East 
and  West  since  the  origin  of  the  Church,  and  these 
questions,  instead  of  bnnging  out  Papal  authority  in 
relief,  had  reduced  it  to  its  strict  limits.  But  in  the 
ninth  century  circumstances  were  changed  ;  the  Papacy 

*  Jager,  Hist,  de  Photius,  liv.  Iv.  p.  114,  edit.  1851 


302  THE   PAPACY. 

had  sacrificed  the  ancient  Catholic  doctrine  to  its  own 
ambitious  dreams,  and  now  availed  itself  of  every  cir- 
cumstance to  establish  a  spiritual  autocracy  as  contrary 
to  Scripture  as  it  was  to  the  teachings  of  the  Fathers 
and  the  councils. 

Sti'ong  in  the  ancient  canons,  Photius  looked  upon  the 
excommunications  of  Nicholas  as  null,  and  continued  to 
discbarge  his  episcopal  duties  with  a  zeal  and  devotion 
that  his  enemies  distort  with  remarkable  dishonesty. 
They  will  only  see  in  him  a  beast  of  prey  ^  combining  the 
most  consummate  hypocrisy  with  cruelty  carried  to  ex- 
travagance, and  do  not  even  take  the  trouble  to  recon- 
cile two  such  characters  in  one  and  the  same  man,  and 
with  facts  which  completely  contradict  them. 

But  Nicholas  could  not  bear  this  contempt  of  his 
sovereign  authority,  and  he  availed  himself  of  the  con- 
version of  the  Bulgarians  to  renew  the  war  against 
Photius.* 

The  first  seeds  of  Christianity  had  been  cast  among 
the  Bulgarians  about  the  year  845.  In  864  Photius 
contributed  powerfully  to  the  conversion  of  the  King 
Bogorisjf  which  was  followed  by  that  of  all  his  people. 
He  even  addressed  to  this  king  a  beautiful  treatise  upon 
the  duties  of  princes.  Bogoris,  at  war  with  the  Ger- 
mans and  their  Emperor  Louis,  thought  he  might  ap- 
pease him  by  asking  for  some  Latin  priests  to  instruct 

*  At  this  time  (866)  the  Emperor  caused  Bardas  to  be  put  to  death,  and  placed 
Basil,  who  had  served  him  in  this  matter,  at  the  head  of  affairs.  The  correspond- 
ence of  Photius  shows  that  the  Patriarch  had  strongly  reproached  Bardas  for  his 
violence  against  Ignatius  and  his  followers.  When  Bardas  was  dead,  Photius  wrote 
to  the  Emperor,  congratulating  him  on  having  escaped  the  intrigues  of  Bardas.  By 
collating  these  letters,  we  see  that  Photius  was  not  on  such  familiar  terms  with  Bar- 
das, that  the  cruelties  of  the  Caesar  could  be  attributed  to  the  Patriarch.  But  this 
conclusion  does  not  suit  the  enemies  of  Photius,  who  would  make  him  answerable 
for  every  act  of  violence.  They  therefore  assert  that  Photius  was  coward  enough  to 
accuse  Bardas  after  his  death,  whom  he  had  meanly  flattered  during  his  life,  and  had 
used  as  the  instrument  of  his  own  revenge.  Enemies  and  fanatics  may  thus  write 
history,  but  such  a  course  can  only  excite  disgust  in  honest  conscleaces. 

t  See  Photius,  Epist.  Book  I.  letter  viii. 


THE   PAPACY.  303 

his  people.  He  sent  ambassadors  to  Rome  in  866,  shortly 
after  the  unlawful  excommunication  pronounced  against 
Photius.  Nicholas  could  not  hesitate  to  avail  himself 
of  so  rare  an  opportunity  to  extend  his  power  in  the 
East.  He  therefore  sent  legates  to  the  King  of  the 
Bulgarians  with  a  long  "  opinion  "  on  the  cases  submit- 
ted by  the  latter,  without  stopping  to  ask  if  the  state- 
ments of  fact  set  forth  in  those  cases  were  true.  He 
did  not  forget*  in  his  "  opinion  "  to  exalt  beyond  meas- 
ure the  Roman  see,  and  to  disparage  that  of  Constan- 
tinople. According  to  him,  the  see  of  Romef  is,  through 
St.  Peter,  the  source  of  the  episcopate  and  the  Apostolate; 
therefore  the  Bulgarians  must  accept  no  bishop  save 
from  Rome.  It  is  from  Rome  also  they  must  receive 
the  doctrine.  "  St.  Peter,"J  he  says,  "  yet  lives  and 
presides  upon  his  seat ,  he  reveals  the  truth  of  the  faith 
to  those  who  seek  it ;  for  the  holy  Roman  Church  has 
always  been  without  spot  or  wrinkle ;  it  was  her  founder 
whose  confession  of  faith  was  expressly  approved." 

The  Pope  added  to  his  legates  to  Bulgaria  three  more 
legates  for  Constantinople,  giving  to  the  latter  eight 
letters  dated  on  the  thirteenth  of  November,  866  ;  they 
are  monuments  of  vainglory.§  He  threatens  to  have  Mi- 
chael's letter  against  the  Roman  prerogatives  ignomini- 
ously  burned  unless  he  will  disavow  it.  He  writes  to 
the  clergy  of  Constantinople  that  he  deposes  all  those 
who  adhere  to  Photius  and  reestablishes  the  partisans 
of  Ignatius.  He  complains  to  Bardas,  that  Bardas  has 
disappointed  him  in  all  that  he  had  hoped  from  his 
piety  {  he  notifies  Ignatius  that  he  has  reestablished 
him  in  his  see,  and  anathematized  Photius  and  his  ad- 
herents ;  he  flatters  Theodora,  the  Empress  dowager^ 
and  congratulates  himself  upon  having  taken  the  part 

•  See  these  answers  in  Labbe's  Collection  of  Councils,  vol.  viii. 
+  Resp.  Ixxiii.  %  Resp.  cvL 

S  Labbe's  Collection,  vol.  Tiii.  Epist.  Nichol.  ix.  et  seq. 


304  THE  PAPACY. 

of  Ignatius  whom  she  herself  supported.;  he  implores 
the  Empress  Eudoxia  to  take  the  part  of  Ignatius  be- 
fore the  Emperor,  and  urges  upon  all  the  senators  of 
Constantinople  that  they  separate  themselves  from  the 
communion  of  Photius  and  declare  themselves  for  Isr- 
hatius. 

His  letter  to  Photius,  the  third  of  the  series,  deserves 
a  special  mention  ;  he  gives  him  simply  the  title  of  maw, 
Nicolas,  etc..  Vieo  Photio.  He  accuses  him  of  havinc 
"impudently  violated  the  venerable  canons,  the  deci- 
sions of  the  Fathers,  and  the  divine  precepts."  lie  calls 
him  thief — adulterer;  asserts  that  he  has  failed  in  his  own 
obligations,  corrupted  the  legates,  banished  those  bish- 
ops who  refused  to  enter  into  communion  with  him; 
adding  that  he  might  justly  call  him  a  homicide,  a  viper, 
a  modern  Ham,  and  a  Jew.  He  falls  back  upon  the  ca- 
nons of  Sardica,  and  the  Decretals  of  his  predecessors, 
and  concludes  by  threatening  such  an  excommunication 
as  should  last  him  during  his  whole  life. 

^0 pathetic  a  letter  could  produce  but  one  result,  that 
of  exciting  Photius  to  condemn  the  Pope. 

The  legates  having  reached  Bulgaria,  all  the  Greek 
priests  were  driven  from  the  country,  and  the  confirma- 
tion which  they  had  administered  was  pronounced  in- 
valid. This  was  to  insult  the  Eastern  Church  in  the 
grossest  mannei-,  and  to  trample  under  foot  the  first  prin- 
ciples of  Christian  theology.  Photius  could  endure  nei- 
ther this  insult  added  to  errour,  nor  the  enterprises  of 
Nicholas.  In  86V  he  convoked  a  council  at  Constanti- 
nople, and  invited  the  Patriarchs  and  bishops  of  the 
East  and  also  three  bishops  of  the  West,  who  had  ap- 
pealed to  him  against  the  despotism  of  Nicholas.* 
These  were  the  Bishop  and  Exarch  of  Ravenna,  and 
the  Archbishops  of  Treves  and  Cologne.f     The  legates 

♦  We  shall  have  occagion  to  mention  his  circular  letter. 

t  Nicholas  was  accustomed  to  depose  bishops,  even  from  the  greatest  sees,  by  hU 


THE  PAPACY,  306 

of  the  three  Patriarchal  sees  of  the  East,  witha  host  of 
bishops,  priests,  and  monks,  the  two  Emperors,  and  the 
senate,  took  part  in  that  assembly.* 

The  letters  of  Nicholas  were  there  read,  and  by  a  unan- 
imous vote  he  was  held  unworthy  of  the  episcopate, 
and  excommunication  and  anathema  were  pronounced 
against  him.  This  decision  was  forwarded  to  Nicholas 
by  Zacharias,  Metropolitan  of  Chalcedon,  and  Theodore 
of  Cyzicus.  Anastasius  the  Librarian  declares  that  but 
twenty-one  among  upward  of  a  thousand  signatures 
with  which  this  document  was  covered,  were  authentic. 
We  know  what  this  man's  testimony  is  worth.  Cer- 
tain it  is  that  the  document  was  well  known  in  the 
East,  and  that  the  Council  of  Constantinople,  which 
afterward  annulled  it,  did  not  consider  the  signatures 
as  forged.  This  fact  speaks  louder  than  any  one  men- 
dacious writer.  The  sentence  of  the  council  against 
Nicholas  was  more  canonical  than  that  pronounced  by 
Nicholas  against  Photius,  for  it  was  only  an  excora- 

own  authority  and  In  violation  of  the  canons,  according  to  which  they  could  only  be 
judged  by  their  fellow-bishops  in  their  own  province.  The  most  of  them  toolc  no 
notice  of  these  condemnations.  The  Archbishops  of  Treves  and  of  Cologne  met  the 
sentence  of  Nicholas  by  a  protest,  wherein,  amongst  other  things,  they  say  :  "  Without 
a  council,  without  canonical  inquiry,  without  accuser,  without  witnesses,  without 
convicting  us  by  arguments  or  authorities,  without  our  consent,  in  the  absence  of 
the  metropolitans  and  of  our  suffragan  bishops,  you  have  chosen  to  condemn  us,  of 
your  own  caprice,  with  tyrannical  fury ;  but  we  do  not  accept  your  accursed  sen- 
tence, so  repugnant  to  a  father's  or  a  brother's  love  ;  we  despise  it  as  mere  insulting 
language ;  we  expel  you  yourself  from  our  communion,  since  you  commune  with 
the  excommunicate  ;  we  are  satisfied  with,  the  communion  of  the  whole  Church 
and  with  the  society  of  our  brethren  whonj  you  despise  and  of  whom  you  make  your- 
self unworthy  by  your  pride  and  arrogance.  You  condemn  yourself  when  you  con- 
demn those  who  do  not  observe  the  apostolic  precepts  which  you  yourself  the  first 
violate,  annulling  as  far  as  in  you  lies  the  divine  laws  and  the  sacred  canons, 

AND  NOT   rOLLOWINO    IN  THK   F0OT8TKPS  OF  THB   POPKS  TOUR   PREDECESSORS. "      Photluft 

did  not  write  to  Nicholas  with  the  rude  energy  of  these  Western  bishops. 

*  The  acts  of  this  council  were'reversed  by  another,  which  was  held  shortly  after 
for  the  purpose  of  reinstating  Ignatius.  This  fact,  admitted  by  the  Western  writers, 
has  not  prevented  certain  of  their  number  from  expressing  the  absurd  opinion  that 
this  cbuncil  never  was  held,  and  that  Photiug  invented  both  the  council  and  its  acts. 
Mr.  Jager  has  adopted  this  idea  in  his  heavy  pamphlet  against  Photias,  Book  IV., 

p.  146; 


306  THE   PAPACY. 

munication  and  not  a  deposition  ;  now  any  church  has 
a  right  to  separate  itself  from  the  communion  of  those 
she  esteems  guilty,  and  no  longer  consider  them  as 
bishops. 

The  same  year  that  Nicholas  was  excommunicated,  a 
revolution  took  place  at  Constantinople  that  was  to  be 
fatal  to  Photius  in  its  results.  Michael  was  killed  by 
Basil,  whom  he  had  associated  with  himself  in  the  em- 
pire. The  murderer  of  Bardas  and  Michael  necessarily 
distrusted  Photius.* 

Moreover,  Photius  refused  to  admit  the  murderer  to 
the  communion.  He  was,  therefore,  shut  up  in  a  mo- 
nastery. Basil  reestablished  Ignatius  and  sent  ambas- 
sadors to  Rome  bearing  the  Acts  of  the  council  that 
had  excommunicated  Nicholas.  This  Pope  had  died 
and  had  been  succeeded  by  Adrian  II.j  who,  in  868,  as- 
sembled a  council  at  Rome  to  condemn  Photius  anew. 
The  envoy  of  the  Emperor,  in  its  presence,  flung  to  the 
ground  the  Acts  of  the  Council  of  Constantinople, 
struck  them  with  his  sword,  and  trampled  them  under 
foot.  After  this  extravagant  conduct  he  asserted  that 
the  signature  of  his  master  upon  the  document  was 
forged ;  that  the  council  had  only  been  composed  of 

♦  The  enemies  of  this  Patriarch,  who  often  contradict  themselves  in  their  Btate- 
ments,  do  not  agree  upon  the  time  or  the  circumstances  of  his  exile.  Anastaslus 
pretends  that  Basil  knew  nothing  of  the  dispute  between  Ignatius  and  Photius  until 
after  the  death  of  Michael ;  that  he  informed  himself  of  the  matter  as  soon  as  he  was 
left  sole  emperor,  and  sent  two  deputies  to  Rome,  one  chosen  by  Ignatius  and  the 
other  by  Photius,  to  plead  their  several  cause  before  the  Pope  :  that  one  of  the  depu- 
ties, the  one  who  represented  Photius,  was  drowned  on  the  voyage ;  that  the  other, 
upon  his  arrival  at  Rome,  found  Nicholas  dead.  Nicetas,  on  the  contrary,  tells  us 
that  the  day  after  the  death  of  the  Emperor  Michae^,  Basil  caused  Photius  to  be  im- 
prisoned In  a  monastery,  in  order  to  reinstate  the  legitimate  Patriarch.  Some  West- 
ern writers  have  hastily  accepted  the  account  of  Nicetas  for  the  sake  of  denying  the 
truth  of  the  story  that  Photius  Incurred  the  hatred  of  Basil  by  refusing  hlra  the  com- 
munion on  account  of  the  murder  he  had  committed.  Of  course  thefe  writers  say 
that  such  an  act  of  pastoral  courage  was  Incompatible  with  the  character  of  Photius. 
This  would  be  quite  true  if  the  great  and  learned  Bishop  had  been  such  an  one  as 
they  paint  him.  But,  as  the  character  they  attribute  to  him  is  diametrically  opposite 
to  his  real  character,  a^  it  shines  forth  in  his  authentic  acts  and  bis  writings,  the/ 
are  only,  In  fact,  giving  one  more  proof  of  their  partiality. 


THE   PAPACY.  307 

some  bishops  who  happened  to  be  in  Constantinople  ;* 
that  the  other  signatures,  one  thousand  in  number,  were 
false.  The  sincerity  of  this  fanatic  may  well  be  doubted. 
If  the  signatures  were  false,  this  ought  to  have  been 
proved  in  the  East  and  not  in  the  West.  Instead  of 
verifying  a  fact  which  could  be  so  easily  ascertained, 
the  Council  of  Rome  decided  that  the  acts  should  be 
burnt. 

Such  a  proceeding  naturally  suggests  that  it  seemed 
easier  to  burn  the  Acts  than  to  prove  their  falsity. 

Adrian  II.  did  not  fail  upon  that  occasion  to  exalt  the 
authority  of  the  Bishop  of  Rome.  "  The  Pope,"  he  said 
in, his  council,  "judges  all  the  bishops,  but  we  do  not 
read  that  any  have  judged  him."f  He  mentions,  indeed, 
the  condemnation  of  Honorius,  but  he  pretends  that  the 
anathema  which  fell  on  him  was  legitimate  only  because 
it  was  previously  pronounced  on  him  by  the  see  of 
Rome  itself  This  assertion  is  false,  as  we  have  already 
seen.  Instead. of  condemning  Honorius,  the  see  of  Rome 
had  endeavoured  to  defend  him.  It  did  not  mention  him 
at  first  among  those  to  be  condemned,  and  it  was  only 
after  the  condemnation  by  the  council  that  Rome  also 
decided  to  pronounce  anathema  against  him. 

Before  separating,  the  members  of  the  Council  of 
Rome  trampled  under  foot  the  acts  which  anathematized 
Nicholas,  and  then  threw  them  into  a  great  fire. 

After  this  expedition  Basil's  ambassadors  returned  to 
Constantinople  accompanied  by  three  legates  <5f  Pope 
Adrian,  bearing  two  letters,  one  addressed  to  the  Em- 
peror, the  other  to  Ignatius.  "  It  is  our  will,"  he  writes 
to  the  Emperor,  "  that  you  should  assemble  a  numerous 
council,  at  which  our  legates  shall  preside,  and  in  which 

*  If  thla  were  true,  tt  would  follow  that  the  rest  of  the  signatures  must  have  been 
collected  outside  of  the  council  and  by  way  of  concurrence.  They  would  then  gain 
In  weight,  for  the  signers,  in  that  case,  must  have  act«d  with  the  more  freedom. 

t  Labbe's  Collection  of  Councils,  toL  tUI. 


308  THE   PAPACY. 

persons  shall  be  judged  according  to  their  faults  ;  and 
that  in  this  council  shall  be  publicly  burnt  all  the  copies 
of  the  acts*  of  the  false  council  held  against  the  Holy- 
See,  and  that  it  be  forbidden  to  preserve  any  of  them 
under  pain  of  anathema."  Adrian  then  demanded  the 
Roman  priests  who  had  gone  to  Constantinople  to  com- 
plain to  Photius  of  Pope  Nicholas.  The  letter  to  Ig- 
natius is  an  instruction  as  to  the  treatment  of  those 
ecclesiastics  who  had  declared  for  Photius,  but  were 
now  willing  to  abandon  his  cause.  Adrian  added  to 
these  letters  a  formula  to  be  signed  by  the  members  of 
the  council,  in  which  they  agreed  to  recognize  him  as 
Sovereign  Pontiff  and  Universal  Pope. 

The  council  was  opened  at  Constantinople,  in  the 
Church  of  Saint  Sophia,  on  the  5th  of  October,  869. 
There  were  present  the  three  Papal  legates,  Ignatius, 
Thomas,  Bishop  of  Tyre,  self-styled  representative  of 
the  Patriarch  of  Antioch,  and  the  priest  Elias,  calling 
himself  the  representative  of  the  Bishop  of  Jerusalem. 

The  bishops  who  declared  against  Photius  were 
brought  in.  They  were  twelve  in  number.  They  were 
permitted  to  take  seats,  and  formed  the  whole  council 
at  the  first  session.  At  the  second,  ten  bishops  who 
had  adhered  to  Photius  entered  to  crave  pardon  for 
their  fault.  It  was  readily  granted,  and  they  took  their 
places  with  the  others.  Eleven  priests,  nine  deacons, 
and  seven  sub-deacons  imitated  the  ten  bishops,  and 
were  pardoned  in  the  same  manner. 

Two  new.bishops  arrived  at  the  third  session,  so  that 
the  assembly  was  composed  of  twenty-four  bishops, 
without  counting  the  presidents.  At  the  fourth  session 
two  bishops,  ordained  by  the  former  Patriarch,  Metho- 
dius, asked  leave  to  defend  the  Patriarch  Photius,  with 

•  The  historians  Inimical  to  Photius  nevertheless  relate  that  but  one  copy  ex- 
isted, carefully  hidden  by  Photius,  who,  they  say,  had  Invented  the  Acts,  which 
copy  was  seized,  carried  to  Rome,  and  burnt  at  the  council  held  in  that  city. 


THE   PAPACY.  309 

whom  they  declared  they  remained  in  communion.  The 
council  refused  to  hear  them.  The  patrician  Bahaner 
opposed  this  decision  in  the  name  of  the  Senate  of  Con- 
stantinople. The  legates  of  the  Pope  upheld  it  on  the 
ground  that  the  Pope  had  pronounced  in  the  last  resort, 
and  it  was  not  lawful  to  examine  the  cause  of  Photius  any 
further.  But  being  obliged  to  yield,  they  added  :  "  Let 
them  enter  and  hear  the  sy nodical  decision  and  judg- 
ment of  Pope  Nicholas.  They  are  seeking  excuses,  and 
only  wish  to  avoid  a  trial."  "  But,"  said  the  Senate, 
"  if  they  wished  to  avoid  it,  they  would  not  cry  owi.  Let 
us  be  judged — they  would  retire."  "  Let  them  enter," 
8aid  the  legates,  "  but  let  them  remain  in  the  lowest 
places."  The  Senate  asked  that  three  or  four  more  bish- 
ops of  the  party  of  Photius  should  be  admitted.  "  We 
consent  to  it,"  said  the  legates,  "  but  on  condition  that 
they  shall  declare  that  they  represent  all  the  rest,  and 
they  shall  only  come  in  to  hear  the  letter  of  Nicholas." 

It  was  evident,  therefore,  that  Rome  had  only  caused 
this  council  to  be  called  in  order  to  consecrate  her  as- 
sumed sovereign  and  universal  authority. 

The  bishops  who  sided  with  Photius,  seeing  that  the 
council  would  not  hear  them,  had  retired.  Only  the 
first  two  remained,  offering  to  prove,  if .  the  Emperor 
would  give  safe-conduct  to  their  witnesses,  that  Nicho- 
las had  communed  with  them  when  Photius  sent  them 
to  Rome  as  his  deputies. 

The  safe-conducts  were  not  granted. 

At  the  fifth  session,  Photius  was  forcibly  brought  in. 
He  only  answered,  in  a  few  words  full  of  dignity,  that 
he  excepted  to  the  council,  and  would  not  plead  to  the 
accusations  brought  against  him.  In  his  eyes  thirty- 
three  bishops,  assembled  by  the  order  of  the  Emperor, 
his  enemy,  should  not  presume  to  reverse  the  sentence 
of  the  three  hundred  and  eighteen  bishops  who  had 
proclaimed  him  legitimate  Patriarch. 


810  TI^^  PAPACY. 

In  the  sixth  session,  the  adjunct  Elias  attempted  to 
prove  that  the  resignation  tendered  by  Ignatius  was 
null  and  void.  This  fact  is  important,  for  it  confirms 
what  Photius  had  written  to  Nicholas,  that  '•'■  his preder 
cesser  had  abandoned  his  office:'  At  the  same  time  it 
proves  that  Ignatius  had  understood  his  duty  in  the  dif- 
ficult position  in  which  he  was  placed ;  that  he  had  at 
first  imitated  the  great  bishops  who  have  always  pre- 
ferred to  resign  an  office  which  was  snatched,  however 
unjustly,  from  them,  rather  than  to  trouble  their  Church. 
Left  to  himself,  Igrnatius  was  too  virtuous  not  to  imitate 
such  conduct ;  but,  in  consequence  of  the  weakness  of 
his  character,  he  became  the  tool  of  a  few  intriguers  and 
of  the  ambitious  projects  of  the  Popes,  who  disguised 
their  own  bad  designs  under  his  virtue. 

Some  bishops,  partisans  of  Photius,  were  introduced 
at  the  sixth  session,  at  which  the  Emperor  was  also  pre- 
sent. After  the  speeches  that  were  made  against  them 
and  their  Patriarch,  the  Emperor  said  to  them,  "  What 
do  you  think  of  it  ?"  "  We  will  answer  you,"  they  re- 
plied, and  one  of  them,  Anthymius,  of  Caesarea,  in 
Cappadocia,  added,  "  My  lord,  we  know  your  goodness 
and  justice;  give  us  in  writing  a  guarantee  of  safety  if 
we  speak  forth  freely  our  justification,  and  we  shall 
hope  to  show  that  these  accusations  are  but  idle  words." 
This  humble  language  only  irritated  the  Emperor,  who 
would  not  give  the  asked  for  assurance.  The  Pope's 
legates,  as  well  as  the  Emperor,  refused  to  hear  any 
justification.  .They  considered  Photius  and  his  adher- 
ents as  irrevocably  condemned  by  Nicholas,  although 
the  sentence  of  that  Pope  was  anti-canonical  and  arbi- 
trary. The  legates  constantly  repeated,  in  tones  of  an- 
ger, "  That  it  was  superfluous  to  hear  condemned  per- 
sons ;  that  they  should  be  expelled  from  the  assembly, 
since  they  had  not  come  there  to  confess  their  fault  and 
ask  pardon."    The  supporters  of  Ignatius  also  sufiered 


THE  PAPACY.  311 

from  the  bitter  language  of  the  legates  when  they  re- 
fused to  sign  the  famous  formula  brought  from  Rome. 

Photius  and  Gregory  of  Syracuse  were  brought  in  at 
the  seventh  session.  An  officer  of  the  court  havins: 
asked  them,  in  the  name  of  the  legates,  if  they  would 
sign  ;  "  If  they  had  heard  what  we  have  already  said," 
replied  Photius,  "they  would  not  ask  this  question. 
Let  them  do  penance  themselves  for  the  sin  they  have 
committed."  This  answer  exasperated  the  legates,  who 
overwhelmed  Photius  with  gross  language,  after  their 
wont.  The  same  officer  then  asked  Photius  what  he 
had  to  reply.  "I  have  no  answer  to  calumnies,"  he 
said.  The  bishops  who  sided  with  Photius  were  again 
solicted,  but  in  vain,  to  separate  from  him.  The  Bishop 
of  Heracleia  even  replied,  pointing  to  Photius,  "  Ana- 
thema upon  him  who  anathematized  that  bishop !"  The 
others  displayed  equal  energy.  They  insisted  on  their 
former  demand  of  perfect  liberty  to  defend  themselves. 
The  Emperor  interposed  a  demurrer,  saying  that  the 
council  represented  the  Church  since  the  live  Patriarchs 
were  represented.*  He  would  not  see  that  one  bishop, 
one  monk,  and  a  priest,  assuming  to  represent  the  three 
Patriarchs  of  Alexandria,  Antioch,  and  Jerusalem,  gave 
no  guarantee,  without  the  presence  of  any  other  bishop 
of  these  Patriarchates,  and  without  an  opportunity  of 
communicating  with  the  Patriarchs  themselves  !  The 
friends*  of  Photius  replied  that  the  canons,  since  the 
Apostles,  proved  just  the  opposite ;  that  the  pretended 
representatives  of  the  five  Patriarchates  did  not  consti- 
tute the  Church,  which,  on  the  contrary,  spoke  by  means 
of  the  canons,  followed  since  the  Apostles. 

This  session  terminated  in  anathemas  against  Photius 

•  The  Patriarchs  of  Antioch  and  Jerusalem  had  only  faUe  representatives. 
The  Patriarch  of  Alexandria  was  only  represented  at  the  ninth  session.  In  his 
letter  to  the  Emperor  he  declares  that  he  Icnows  nothing  of  the  discussions,  and 
that  he  relies  on  the  Emperor  and  hlB  biabopa  and  clergy.  Bis  enToy  was 
'.afterward  disavowed. 


312  THE  PAPACY. 

and  his  partisans.  In  the  following  session,  every  paper 
■which  could  implicate  those  of  this  council  who  had  taken 
the  part  of  Photius  against  Ignatius  was  burned  before  the 
whole  council.  Finally  the  council  ended  with  some  can- 
ons and  a  profession  of  faith.  The  acts  were  signed  by 
one  hundred  and  two  bishops.  This  was  but  few  when 
we  reflect  that  the  Patriarchate  of  Constantinople  alone 
numbered  at  that  time  more  than  six  hundred,  and  that 
the  Emperor  Basil  had  used  all  his  influence  to  collect  a 
numerous  council.  An  immense  majority  of  the  bishops 
took  no  part  in  what  took  place  at  Constantinople. 
Some  zealous  friends  of  Photius  were  the  only  ones  who 
would  make  up  their  minds  to  appear  before  the  assem- 
bly, and  protest  against  that  which  was  done  there,  and 
put  the  Emperor  in  the  wrong  by  asking  him  to  guar- 
antee to  them  full  liberty  for  their  defence. 

A  fact  worthy  of  remark,  and  of  the  greatest  signifi- 
cance, is  that  Ignatius,  who  presided  side  by  side  with 
the  legates  of  Rome,  kept  the  most  profound  silence 
during  the  whole  council.  A  great  number  of  questions 
were  discussed  before  him,  upon  which  he  alone  could 
give  positive  information — such  as  that  of  his  resigna- 
tion and  the  attendant  circumstances,  the  conduct  of 
Photius  toward  him,  and  many  others.  Ignatius  allowed 
them  to  be  discussed  pro  and  contra,  without  saying 
one  word  to  throw  light  upon  the  debates.  Must  it  not 
be  inferred  from  such  silence  that  he  did  not  know  what 
side  to  take  in  view  of  the  facts  as  he  knew  they  had 
happened,  and  of  the  plausible  reasons  under  which  the 
Koman  legates  and  certain  intriguers  covered  their 
lying  recitals  ? 

Whatever  we  may  cTioose  to  infer  from  this  silence, 
we  think  that  it  can  only  be  construed  in  favour  of  Pho- 
tius, and  of  his  version  of  all  that  had  occurred.*     We 

♦  It  must  be  observed  that  the  Acts  of  this  Council  of  Constantinople,  considered 
by  Rome  oecumenical,  are  only  known  to  Anastasius  the  Librarian.    The  authentic 


THE   PAPACY.  313 

naturally  ask  why  Ignatius  did  not  deny  that  he  had 
abdicated,  or  assert  that  it  had  been  extorted  from  him 
by  violence,  since  this  was  the  gist  of  the  whole  ques- 
tion. We  may  therefore  conclude  that  he  really  re- 
signed his  see,  freely  and  conscientiously  ;  but  that 
Nicholas  being  unwilling,  as  he  himself  said,  to  accept 
that  resignation,  some  ambitious  men,  personal  ene- 
mies of  Photius,  prevailed  upon  Ignatius  to  reconsider 
his  determination,  suggesting  to  him  as  a  legitimate 
motive  the  protest  of  the  Patriarch  of  Rome  against  it. 

But  while  he  followed  the  impulsion  of  Rome  in  what 
concerned  his  reinstalment  in  his  see,  Ignatius  did  not 
show  himself  disposed  to  submit  to  all  its  requirements, 
as  in  the  matter  of  signing  the  Roman  formula,  aijd 
in  the  conference,  which  took  place  after  the  council, 
concerning  the  Church  of  Bulgaria. 

Several  members  of  the  council,  from  hatred  to  Pho- 
tius rather  than  from  conviction,  had  already  signed  the 
formula  which  enslaved  the  whole  Church  to  the  Ro- 
man see.  They  had  submitte'd  to  this  demand  in  order 
that  the  council,  from  which  they  expected  results  satis- 
factory to  their  own  secret  desires,  should  not  remain 
an  impossibility.  After  it  was  over,  they  sent  com- 
plaints to  the  Emperor  and  to  Ignatius  regarding  their 
signatures,  and  asked  that  they  should  not  be  sent  to 
Rome.  They  protested,  moreover,  against  the  qualified 
form  in  which  the  legates  had  signed,  reserving  the  ap- 
probation of  the  Pope,  for  thereby  the  Bishop  of  Rome 
reserved  the  right  to  approve  or  to  cancel,  at  his  wiU, 
what  had  been  done. 

It  was  too  late  to  remedy  this  ;  but  the  Emperor,  to 

acts  were  taken  from  the  legates  by  the  Sclavonians,  who  robbed  them  on  their  ra- 
turn  from  Constantinople.  Anastaslus  pretended  that  he  had  an  exact  copy  of  the 
acts,  which  he  translated  into  Latin  at  Rome.  It  is  therefore  to  the  evidence  of  this 
man  that  we  have  to  refer  for  all  that  relates  to  this  council.  If  the  acts,  such  M  he 
has  ^ven  them,  are  so  favourable  to  Photius,  is  It  not  reasonable  to  think  that  they 
would  be  much  more  so  If  they  were  trustworthy  Y 


314  THE  PAPACY. 

ease  his  mind  in  regard  to  the  formula,  caused  all 
the  signatures  that  could  be  found  in  the  house  of  tho 
legates  to  be  taken  away  during  their  absence.  The 
legates  protested ;  but  in  vain.  Ignatius  did  not  cen- 
sure this  act  of  the  Emperor,  and  proved,  in  the  confer- 
ence about  Bulgaria,  that  he  was  not  a  partisan  of  the 
doctrine  of  the  formula. 

'  The  Bulgarians  learning  that  a  council  was  sitting  at 
Constantinople,  sent  deputies  there  to  know  whether 
their  church  '  should  depend  from  Rome  or  Constan- 
tinople.* 

The  Emperor  convoked  the  legates  of  Rome  and  the 
East  to  answer  this  question  in  presence  of  Ignatius, 
"As  wc  have  newly  received  the  grace  of  baptism,  we 
fear  lest  we  make  a  mistake  ;  we  therefore  ask  you,  who 
represent  the  Patriarchs,  to  what  church  we  should  be 
subject." 

Pope  Nicholas  had  replied  to  the  question,  but  his 
decision  was  only  regarded  as  that  of  a  single  Patriarch. 
The  legates  of  Rome  maintained  that  his  decision  was 
supreme,  and  must  not  be  departed  from.  The  Eastern 
legates  were  not  of  this  opinion.  The  Romans  pro- 
tested that  they  had  received  no  power  to  examine  the 
question  raised  by  the  Bulgarians.  In  spite  of  this  spe- 
cial pleading,  the  Eastern  legates  judged  it  proper  to  be 
decided.  "  From  whom  have  you  conquered  the  prov- 
inces where  you  dwell  ?"  they  asked  of  the  Bulgarians  ; 
"  and  what  church  was  established  there  then  ?" 

"  We  wrested  them  from  the  Greeks,"  they  replied ; 
"  and  the  Greek,  clergy  were  established  there." 

"  In  that  case,"  said  the  legates,  "  your  church  de- 
pends from  the  Greeks ;  that  is,  from  the  Patriarchate 
of  Constantinople." 

"  But,  for  the  last  three  years^''  said  the  papal  legates, 
**  Rome  has  sent  Latin  priests  there."    This  prescription 

•  See  Tit.  Pap.  Hadr.  et  Eplst.  Hadr.  In  Labbe'a  Collection,  toI.  tUL 


THE    PAPACY.  315 

of  three  years  did  not  suffice,  in  the  eyes  of  the  other 
legates,  to  prevail  over  the  ancient  possession,  and  they 
decFared  that  the  Bulgarian  church  should  be  under  the 
jurisdiction  of  the  Patriarchate  of  Constantinople.  Ig- 
natius was  of  the  same  opinion  ;  but  the  Roman  legates 
said  that  the  holy  see  of  Rome  had  not  chosen  them  for 
judges.  '■'■He  only^''  they  added,  "Aas  the  right  to 
judge  the  xohole  Church.  He  despises  your  opinion  as 
readily  as  you  give  it  lightly."  As  long  as  the  condem- 
nation of  Photius  was  the  question,  that  opinion  had 
been  of  far  greater  value  in  their  eyes.  They  annulled 
the  judgment  that  had  been  rendered,  and  begged  Ig- 
natius not  to  despise  the  rights  of  the  holy  see,  which 
had  restored  him,  to  his.  The  Emperor  was  angry  at 
the  pretensions  of  the  legates.  They  soon  left,  and  were 
robbed  on  the  way  by  the  Sclavonians,  who  took  from 
them  the  authentic  acts  of  the  council. 

In  consequence  of  the  decision  of  the  Eastern  legates, 
the  Bulgarians  dismissed  the  bishop  and  priests  who 
had  been  sent  by  Rome  to  them,  and  received  a  Greek 
bishop  and  priests.  Adrian  learning  this,  wrote  to  the 
Emperor  of  the  East,  threatening  Ignatius  and  the  bish- 
ops he  had  sent  to  Bulgaria  with  excommunication. 

There  is  extant  only  a  fragment  of  a  letter  from 
Adrian  II.  to  Ignatius.  He  speaks  to  him  as  a  superior 
to  an  inferior;  accuses  him  of  violating  the  canons  as 
they  obtained  at  Rome  ;  and  tells  him,  in  threatening  lan- 
guage, that  a  similar  course  had  occasioned  the  fall  of 
Photius. 

Such  letters  make  it  very  evident  that  Rome  had  pur- 
sued the  reinstalment  of  Ignatius,  not  for  the  sake  of 
justice,  but  to  find  occasion  to  do  an  act  of  sovereignty 
in  the  East.  A  careful  reading  of  these  documents  leaves 
no  doubt  in  this  respect.  Ignatius,  in  the  eyes  of  the 
Pope,  was  as  guilty  as  Photius,  the  moment  be  refused 
to  submit  to  this  sovereignty. 


310  THE  PAPACY. 

Adrian  II.  died  in  the  month  of  November,  872,  and 
was  succeeded  by  John  VIII.  This  Pope  took  greatly 
to  heart  this  affair  of  Bulgaria.  He  wrote  twice  to  Ig- 
natius to  demand  that  he  should  renounce  all  jurisdic- 
tion over  that  church.  The  Emperor  Basil  (878)  having 
asked  him  for  legates  to  labour  for  the  pacification  of  the 
religious  troubles  which  had  been  rife  in  the  East  since 
the  reestablishment  of  Ignatius,  the  Pope  availed  him- 
self of  this  occasion  to  write  to  that  Patriarch  a  third 
letter,  in  which  he  thus  expressed  himself:*  "We  give 
you  this  third  canonical  monition  (he  should  have  said 
anti-cationical)  by  our  legates  and  letters  ;  thereby  we 
command  you  to  send  without  delay  to  Bulgaria  active 
men,  who  shall  go  through  the  whole  country,  and  take 
away  all  those  whom  they  may  there  find  who  have 
been  ordained  by  you  or  by  those  of  your  dependence, 
so  tliat  in  one  month  there  shall  remain  neither  bishops 
nor  clergy  of  your  ordination  ;  for  we  cannot  consent 
that  they  should  infect  with  their  err  our  this  new  church 
which  ice  have  formed.  If  you  do  not  withdraw  them 
within  the  time  mentioned,  and  if  you  do  not  renounce 
all  jurisdiction  over  Bulgaria,  you  are  hereby  deprived 
of  the  communion  of  the  body  and  blood  of  the  Lord 
until  you  obey.  A  delay  of  two  months  from  the  recep- 
tion of  this  letter  is  granted  to  you.  If  you  remain  ob- 
stinate in  your  violation  of  discipline  and  your  usurpa- 
tion, you  are  hereby,  by  the  judgment  of  Almighty  God, 
and  by  the  authority  of  the  blessed  Apostle  Princes,  and 
by  the  sentence  of  Our  Mediocrity,  deprived  of  and  de- 
posed from  the  dignity  of  the  Patriarchate  which  you 
have  received  through  our  favour." 

Thus,  to  usurp  jurisdiction  over  the  Church  of  Bul- 
garia, the  Pope  does  not  hesitate  to  strike,  ipso  facto., 
a  Patriarch  with  excommunication  and  deposition,  if  he 
does  not  obey  his  orders  I    Have  we  observed  any  simi- 

♦  Joann.  Pap.  VIII.  Ep.,  Labbe's  Collection,  vol.  U. 


THE  PAPACY.  317 

lar  conduct  on  the  part  of  the  Popes  of  the  first  eight 
centuries  ? 

But  the  bishops  of  the  East  were  neither  disposed  to 
recognize  the  Papal  authority  nor  to  obey  his  anti-can- 
onical orders.  Those  who  supported  Ignatius  were  as 
much  opposed  to  this  as  the  partisans  of  Photius. 

John  VIII.  wrote  to  the  Greek  bishops  and  clergy  in 
Bulgaria  a  letter  still  more  severe  than  that  addressed 
to  the  Patriarch  Ignatius^  It  began  thus  :  "  To  all  the 
bishops  and  other  Greek  clergy,  invaders  of  the  diocese 
of  Bulgaria,  and  excommunicate  by  these  presents." 
He  gave  them  thirty  days  to  obey  his  orders,  and  prom- 
ised the  bishops  to  give  them  other  sees  on  condition  of 
leaving  those  they  then  occupied. 

This  was  certainly  acting  as  absolute  sovereign.  John 
wrote  to  the  Bulgarian  King  and  to  Count  Peter,  who 
had  been  envoy  to  Rome  in  the  time  of  Pope  Nicholas. 
The  substance  of  tliese  letters  is,  that  nothing  should  be 
received  save  from  the  Roman  Church,  inasmuch  as  she 
is  the  source  of  all  true  doctrine.  All  these  missives 
were  sent  by  the  legates  Paul  and  Eugene.  When  these 
envoys  reached  Constantinople,  Ignatius  was  dead,  and 
Photius  was  again  Patriarch,  (878.)* 

After  some  difficulties,  the  legates  recognized  Photius 
as  Patriarch,  and  even  said  that  Pope  John  had  sent 
them  to  Constantinople  to  anathematize  Ignatius  and 
reinstate  Photius.  Photius  and  the  Emperor  Basil  sent 
letters  and  ambassadors  to  the  Pope.f  John  was  ap- 
prised of  this,  and  seemed  disposed  to  pacify  the  Church 

*  It  i3  not  our  business  to  relate  the  doings  of  Photius  during  his  exile.  We 
tlierefore  only  refer  to  his  letters  those  who  wish  for  cumulative  proof  of  the  gen- 
tleness, charity,  and  ability  whereby  he  regained  the  good  graces  of  the  Emperor 
Basil.  These  documents  more  than  sufficijntly  answer  the  hateful  statements  of  his 
enemies,  in  which  absurdity  vies  with  atrocity,  and  which,  to  every  impartial  man, 
only  prove  the  blind  hatred  of  those  who  composed  them. 

+  Among  tliese  letters  there  was  one  in  which  Ignatius,  near  unto  death,  begged 
the  Pope  to  recognize  Photius  as  lawful  Patriarch.  Naturally  enough,  the  enemies 
of  Photius  maintain  that  this  letter  is  a  forgery,  but  without  proof. 


318  THE   PAPACY. 

of  Constantinople  and  to  receive  favourably  the  letters 
and  envoys  ;*  which  he  really  did,  and  sent  them  back 
with  letters  for  the  Emperor  and  Photius.  These  letters 
of  John  VIII.  contain  the  most  distinct  answer  to  all 
the  calumnies  of  the  enemies  of  Photius.  "  In  consider- 
ation," he  said  to  the  Emperor,  "  of  the  unanimity  with 
which  all  the  Patriarchs,  even  those  who  had  been 
ordained  by  Ignatius,  had  acquiesced  in  the  election  of 
Photius,  he  consented  to  recognize  him  as  Patriarch." 

But  as  Photius  had  not  waited  for  the  recognition  of 
Rome  to  reascend  his  episcopal  chair,  and  regarded  as 
null  the  council  assembled  against  him,  the  Pope  en- 
larged extensively  upon  this  consideration :  that  neces- 
sity frequently  exempts  from  the  observance  of  rules. 
He  therefore  passes  over  these  formal  difficulties  the 
more  readily  as  the  legates  of  his  predecessor  had 
signed  the  acts  of  the  council  conditionally  and  saving 
the  approbation  of  the  Pope  ;  he  gives  in  detail  the 
conditions  iipon  which  he  recognizes  Photius  ;  he  must 
assemble  a  council  and  ask  pardon  for  haying  reascended 
his  seat  without  a  sentence  of  absolution ;  he  must 
renounce  all  jurisdiction  over  Bulgaria,  and  must  receive 
into  his  communion  all  the  bishops  ordained  by  Ignatius. 
As  to  those  of  the  latter  who  should  refuse  to  enter  in 
communion  with  Photius,  he  threatens  them  with  excom- 
munication. 

These  latter  bishops  were  very  few  in  number.  The 
Pope  wrote  to  the  principal  ones,  Metrophanes,  Stylienus, 
and  John,  threatening  them  with  excommunication  ;  and 
he  charged  the  legates,  whom  he  intrusted  with  his  let- 
ters, to  excommunicate  all  those  who  should  refuse  to 
recognize  Photius  as  legitimate  Patriarch,  forbidding' 
all,  whoever  they  might  be,  to  give  credit  to  the  calum^ 
nies  circulated  against  this  Patriarch. 

It  is,  doubtless,  out  of  respect  for  these  commands  of 

•  Letters  of  Pope  John  Vni.  In  Labbe's  Collection. 


THE   PAPACY.  319 

the  Pope,  that  the  Romish  writers  have  vied  in  repeat- 
ing these  calumnies  of  such  as  Metrophanes,  Stylienus, 
Nicetas,  and  other  inveterate  enemies  of  Photius,  and 
have  refused  to  see  any  thing  save  knavery  and  hypoc- 
risy in  the  familiar  correspondence  of  this  great  man. 
They  have  left  no  means  untried  to  disguise  the  import- 
ance of  these  letters  of  John  VIII.  Cardinal  Baronius, 
in  his  Annals,  goes  so  far  as  to  maintain  that  thefemi. 
nine  weakness  displayed  by  John  in  this  matter,  gave 
rise  to  the  fable  of  a  female  pope  Joan.  Every  one 
knows  that  John  VIIL,  far  from  being  weak  in  char- 
acter, was  energetic  even  to  roughness ;  but  Romish 
writers  stick  at  nothing  when  they  wish  to  rid  them- 
selves of  facts,  or  even  of  Popes  whose  acts  do  not 
neatly  fit  into  their  systematic  histories. 

The  legates  with  the  Pope's  letters  having  reached 
Constantinople,  a  council  was  called  and  attended  by 
three  hundred  and  eighty-three  bishops,  with  Elias,  who 
represented  the  Patriarch  of  Jerusalem.* 

John's  letters  are  full  of  the  new  teachings  of  the  Pa- 
pacy. He  claims  that  he  has,  by  divine  right,  the  care 
of  all  the  churches,  and  occupies  the  place  of  St.  Peter, 
to  whom  Christ  said,  '■'■Feed  my  sheep.^^  He  pretends 
that  be  has  been  entreated  to  admit  Photius  to  the  dig- 
nity of  the  Patriarchate,  and  even  to  ecclesiastical  orders ; 
he  now  admits  him,  although  he  has  usurped  the  episco- 
pate without  the  consent  of  the  holy  see,  but  on  condi- 
tioi^i  that  he  shall  ask  pardon  in  full  council ;  he  gives 
him  absolution  by  virtue  of  the  power  he  has  received 
from  Jesus  Christ  through  St.  Peter,  to  bind  and  loose 
all  things  without  exception.  He  commands  Photius  to 
resign  all  jurisdiction  over  Bulgaria,  and  forbids  him 
to  ordain  any  there.  In  all  his  letters  he  gives  com- 
mands, and  claims  to  exercise  an  absolute  sovereignty 
of  divine  origin. 

•  Collection  of  Councils  by  Father  Hardouln,  toI.  tL 


320  THE   PAPACY. 

Such  pretensions  were  not  recognized  in  the  East, 
which  held  to  the  doctrines  of  the  first  eight  centuries 
on  the  subject  of  the  Papacy.  It  was  clear  that  if  such 
letters  as  these  were  read  in  the  council,  all  hope  of 
peace  was  at  an  end.  Hence  only  the  substance  of 
these  letters  was  retained  ;  every  expression  that  could 
wound,  or  give  reason  to  believe  that  the  Pope  wished 
to  be  Sovereign  of  the  Church,  was  weeded  out.  Ex- 
pressions of  encomium  in  use  in  the  East  were  added. 
These  letters,  as  Fleury  tells  us,  were  thus  modified, 
*'  apparently  in  concert  with  the  legates,  who  heard  them 
read  without  complaint."  The  first  of  these  legates. 
Cardinal  Peter,  having  asked,  "  Do  you  receive  the 
Pope's  letter?"  the  council  replied,  "We  receive  all 
that  relates  to  the  union  with  Photius  and  the  interests 
of  the  Church,  but  not  what  concerns  the  Emperor  and 
his  provinces."  By  this,  the  Council  rejected  the  pre- 
tensions of  the  Pope  to  Bulgaria.  From  such  a  unani- 
mous disposition  of  nearly  four  hundred  Eastern  bish- 
ops, we  may  judge  what  protests  the  Pope's  letters 
would  have  excited  if  the  legates  had  not  had  the  pru- 
dence to  modify  them  in  concert  with  Photius.*  The 
East  had  always  preserved  this  maxim,  followed  by  all 
the  oecumenical  councils,  that  ecclesiastical  divisions 
must  follow  those  of  the  empire.  Bulgaria,  having  been 
anciently  a  Greek  province,  depended  from  the  Greek 
Patriarch  and  not  the  Latin. 

Cardinal  Peter  having  asked  that  the  adversaries  of 
Photius  who  had  been  excluded  might  be  recalled, 
Photius  replied,  "  The  Emperor  has  only  exiled  two  of 


♦The  Abb6  Jager,  in  his  indigestible  pamphlet  against  Photius,  claims  that  the 
Pope's  letters  were  altered  by  Photius  alone.  Would  not  the  legates  have  protested 
against  that  fraud,  since  they  heard  them  read  in  the  council  in  their  modified 
shape  ?  Instead  of  complaining  of  these  letters,  they  publicly  sought  to  ascertain 
that  "every  one  was  satisfied  with  them.  Moreover,  they  carried  them  back  to  Roma 
with  the  acts  of  the  council.  The  Pope  did  not  protest,  and  it  is  In  Rome  itself  that 
they  were  afterward  found. 


THE  PAPACY.  321 

them,  and  that  for  causes  not  ecclesiastical;  we  pray 
him  to  recall  them." 

"How  did  the  Patriarch  Photius  reascend  his 
throne  ?"  asked  Peter. 

The  council  replied,  "  By  the  consent  of  the  three 
Patriarchs,  at  the  request  of  the  Emperor  ;  or  rather 
yielding  to  the  violence  done  to  him,  and  to  the  prayers 
of  the  whole  Church  of  Constantinople." 

"  What !"  asked  Peter,  "  has  there  been  no  violence  on 
the  part  of  Photius  ?     Has  he  not  acted  tyrannically  ?" 

"  On  the  contrary,"  replied  the  council,  "  all  took 
place  with  gentleness  and  tranquillity." 

"  Thank  God  !"  exclaimed  the  Cardinal. 

Thus,  nearly  four  hundred  bishops,  in  presence  of  the 
Pope's  envoys,  and  in  public,  confound  the  rare  calum- 
niators of  Photius,  and  yet  these  calumniators  are  ac- 
cepted in  the  West  as  writers  worthy  of  faith,  even  while 
their  histories  give  numberless  proofs  of  a  hatred  akin 
to  madness  and  absurdity  ! 

When  Cardinal  Peter  had  finished  his  questions,  Pho- 
tius spoke  as  follows :  "  I  tell  you,  before  God,  that  I 
never  desired  this  see  ;  the  majority  of  those  here  pres- 
ent know  this  well.  The  first  time  I  took  it  against  my 
will,  shedding  many  tears,  after  resisting  it  for  a  long 
time,  and  in  consequence  of  the  insurmountable  violence 
of  the  emperor  who  then  reigned,  but  with  the  consent  of 
the  bishops  and  clergy,  who  had  given  their  signatures 
without  my  knowledge.     They  gave  me  guards"  .  .  . 

He  was  interrupted  by  the  exclamations  of  the  coun- 
cil, "  We  know  it  all,  either  of  our  own  knowledge  or 
by  the  evidence  of  others  who  have  told  us." 

"God  permitted  me  to  be  driven  away,"  continued 
Photius.  "  I  did  not  seek  to  return.  I  never  excited 
seditions.  I  remained  at  rest,  thanking  God,  and  bend- 
ing before  his  judgments,  without  importuning  the  Em- 
peror, without  hope  or  desire  to  be  reinstated.     God, 


322  THE   PAPACY. 

who  works  miracles,  has  touched  the  Emperor's  heart,* 
not  for  my  sake  but  for  the  sake  of  his  people :  he  has 
recalled  me  from  my  exile.  But,  so  long  as  Ignatius  of 
blessed  memory  lived,  I  could  not  bring  myself  to  resume 
my  place,  in  spite  of  the  exhortations  and  entreaties  that 
were  made  by  many  upon  this  subject." 

The  council  said,  "  It  is  the  truth." 

"  I  meant,"  continued  Photius,  "  to  make  my  peace 
with  Ignatius  firm  in  every  way.  We  saw  each  other 
in  the  palace ;  we  fell  at  each  other's  feet,  and  mutually 
forgave  each  other.  When  he  fell  ill  he  sent  for  me ;  I 
visited  him  several  times,  and  gave  him  every  consolation 
in  my  power.  He  recommended  to  rae  those  who  were 
most  dear  to  him,  and  I  have  taken  care  of  them.  After 
his  death  the  Emperor  entreated  me  publicly  and  pri- 
vately ;  he  came  himself  to  see  me,  to  urge  me  to  yield 
to  the  wishes  of  the  bishops  and  clergy.  I  have  yielded 
to  so  miraculous  a  change  that  I  might  not  resist  God." 

The  council  said,  "  It  is  thii3." 

Are  not  such  words  worth  more,  pronounced  publicly 
as  they  were,  and  their  truth  attested  by  four  hundred 
bishops,  than  all  the  diatribes  of  passionate  enemies  ? 

In  the  following  sessions,  the  legates  of  the  Patri- 
archal sees  of  Alexandria,  Antioch,  and  Jerusalem  gave 
unquestionable  proofs  that  their  Patriarchs  had  always 
been  in  communion  with  Photius  ;  that  the  pretended 
legates  who  wei-e  present  at  the  council  of  869,  under 
Adrian,  and  who  had  concurred  in  the  condemnation  of 
Photius,  were  only  envoys  of  the  Saracens,  as  Photius 
himself  had  written  in  his  protest  against  that  assembly. 

In  consequence,  that  council  was  anathematized  by 
the  legates  of  Rome,  by  those  of  the  other  Patriarchal 
sees  of  the  East,  and  by  all  the  bishops  present,  f 


♦  His  enemies  haye  said  that  he  resorted  to  magic  to  dispose  Basil  in  his  favour 
and  some  serious  historians  have  accepted  this  ridiculous  accusation. 
+  Nevertheless,  the  Romanists  call  that  council  of  869  the  eigMh  oieumenicaL 


THE  PAPACY.  328 

The  acts  of  the  council  of  8V9  are  as  full  of  dignity 
and  as  high-toned  as  those  of  the  council  of  869  were 
passionate  and  unworthy  of  true  bishops.  Adrian's 
legates  were  more  like  men  possessed  than  like  judges, 
if  we  may  judge  from  the  acts  preserved  by  Anastasiua 
the  Librarian,  while  the  legates  of  John,  on  the  contrary, 
displayed  in  all  things  as  much  wisdom  as  moderation.* 
During  their  sojourn  at  Constantinople  they  repeatedly 
saw  Metrophanes,  one  of  the  worst  enemies  of  Photius, 
and  one  of  the  writers  who  serve  as  guides  to  the 
Romish  writers  in  their  accounts.  They  requested  him 
to  furnish  proofs  against  Photius,  but  could  draw  from 
him  nothing  but  idle  words.  They  summoned  him  to 
the  council,  but  he  refused  to  appear,  under  the  false 
pretext  of  illness.  "  He  is  not  bo  ill,"  said  the  legates, 
"  that  he  cannot  talk  a  great  deal,  and  yet  say  very  lit- 
tle."    Upon  his  refusal  to  appear  he  was  anathematized. 

•  The  acts  of  the  council  of  8T9  have  been  found  In  the  original  at  Rome  Itself, 
with  all  the  authentic  signatures,  including  those  of  the  legates  of  Rome ;  and  yet 
the  ecclesiastical  historians  of  the  West  insinuate  that  they  may  have  been  altered. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  acts  of  the  council  of  869  were  lost  by  the  Roman  legates, 
and  are  only  known  through  Anastasius  the  Librarian,  who  pretended  to  have  a 
copy ;  and  the  Western  historians  will  not  allow  of  a  doubt  as  to  their  genuine- 
ness. Is  this  impartial  ?  If  the  acts  of  the  council  of  879  had  come  from  the  East 
to  the  West,  there  might  be  some  grounds  for  contesting  their  genuineness  ;  but  they 
were  found  at  Borne,  and  were  taken  ttora.  the  archives  of  Rome  to  give  them  to  the 
public. 


324  THE   PAPACY. 


vn. 


THK  PAPACY  WHICH  CAUSED  THE  DIVISION  HAS  PERPBT- 
(JATED  AND  STRENGTHENED  IT  BY  INNOVATIONS,  AND 
JfADE    IT  A    SCHISM. 

(ROM  the  facts  which  we  have  just  discussed, 
it  appears  that  the  Papacy  in  the  ninth  cen- 
tury sought  dominion  over  the  Church,  and 
the  position  of  a  sovereign  pontificate,  the 
centre  of  unity  and  the  guardian  of  orthodoxy.  Its  de- 
fenders are  very  far  from  contesting  this ;  but  they  claim 
that  these  pretensions  were  not  new,  and  to  prove  this 
they  appeal  to  the  dogmatic  testimony  of  the  Fathers, 
to  the  facts  of  ecclesiastical  history  of  the  first  centu-; 
ries  of  the  Church,  and  even  to  the  word  of  God. 

We  announced  it  as  our  special  purpose  to  show  their 
assertions  to  be  false  in  regard  to  the  first  eight  centu, 
ries  of  the  Church,  and  this  we  have  done. 

We  grant  that  after  the  ninth  century  the  Popes 
assumed  to  exercise  the  sovereign  pontificate.  We  have 
pointed  out  the  first  occasions  on  which  Rome  came 
before  the  Eastern  Church  with  her  new  pretensions, 
and  we  have  ascertained  that  the  Oriental  Church  re- 
fused to  recojrnize  them. 

It  is  thus  beyond  all  doubt  that  it  was  the  Papacy 
which  provoked  the  division,  by  seeking  to  impose  a 
sovereignty  upon  the  whole  Church  which  had  been  un- 
known during  the  first  eight  centuries  of  the  Church. 
Union  being  reestablished,  at  least  in  appearance,  be- 


THE   PAPACY.  825 

tween  the  Papacy  and  Photius,  the  Eastern  Church  was 
none  the  less  separated  from  Rome  ;  for  there  was  now 
a  radical  divergency  between  them.     Peace  would  not 
have  existed  even  outwardly  between  them  if  the  letters 
of  Pope  John  had  been  read  to  the  last  council  as  they 
were  written.     In  tlie  assembly  of  869  the  partisans  of 
Ignatius  and  Ignatius  himself  declared  against  the  Papal 
sovereignty  almost  as  energetically  as  Photius  and  his 
friends.     On  her  side,  Rome  no  longer  did   any  thing 
without  asserting  her  pretended  sovereignty,  and  with- 
out setting  herself  up  as  the  necessary  centre  of  unity. 
The  controversies  between  the  Papacy  and  Photius, 
like  their  reconciliation,  would  have  remained  as  unim- 
portant as  a  thousand  others  of  the  same  kind  in  the 
history  of  the  Church,  if  a  radical  division  had  not  been 
worked  out  from  that  time  in  consequence  of  the  insti- 
tution of  the  Papacy.     In  following  out  these  relations 
of  the  East  with  Rome,  we  shall  meet  with  many  attempts 
to  reconcile  the  two  churches  at  different  periods.     But 
Rome  insisting  upon  a  recognition  of  her  sovereignty  as 
a  condition  precedent,  and  the  Eastern  Church  always 
appealing  to  the  doctrine  of  the  first  eight  centuries, 
unity  could  never  be  reestablished.     It  would  now  only 
be  possible  on  condition  that  the  Papacy  should  abandon 
its  unlawful  pretensions,  or  the  Eastern  Church  the  prim- 
itive doctrine.     Now,  the  Eastern  Church  well  knows 
that  the  renunciation  of  that  doctrine  would  not  only  be 
criminal  in  itself,  but  would  result  in  subjection  to  an 
autocracy  condemned  by   the  Gospel  and  by  Catholic 
doctrine ;    hence    she   cannot   yield  without   incurring 
guilt  and  without   committing  suicide.      And  the  Pa- 
pacy, on  its  side,  knows  that  it  annihilates  itself  by  return- 
ing to  the  Catholic  unity  with  the  simple  character  of 
the  ancient  Roman  episcopate.     It  will  not,  therefore, 
yield  any  of  the  prerogatives  which  it  has  grown  to  con- 
sider as  emanating  from  a  divine  source.    For  this  cause 


326  TEE  PAPACY, 

it  not  on\j  jxrovoked  the  division  in  the  Church,  but  has 
perpetuated  and  strengthened  it  by  the  pertinacity 
with  which  it  has  maintained  what  wa»  the  direct  cause 
of  it. 

To  this  first  cause  we  must  add  the  successive  changes 
which  it  has  introduced  in  orthodox  doctrine  and  the 
oecumenical  rules  of  discipline.  The  history  of  its  inno- 
A'ations  would  be  long.  From  the  institution  of  the  au- 
tocracy to  the  new  dogma  of  the"  Immaculate  Concep- 
tion, how  many  changes  !  how  many  important  modi- 
fications I  We  may  write  this  sad  history  in  a  special 
work.  At  this  time  it  will  suffice  to  consider  the  most 
serious  innovation  which  it  has  permitted  itself,  namely, 
the  addition  which  it  has  made  to  the  Creed ;  for  that 
addition,  together  with  the  Papal  autocracy,  was  the 
direct  cause  of  the  division  which  still  exists  between 
the  Eastern  and  Western  churches. 

It  has  been  sought  to  trace  the  discussion  respecting 
the  procession  of  the  Holy  Spirit  to  remote  antiquity. 
We  will  not  follow  the  learned  upon  this  ground,  but 
will  simply  show  that  it  was  in  the  eighth  century  that 
it  first  assumed  any  importance.* 

Two  Spanish  Bishops,  Felix  d'Urgel  and  Elipand  of 
Toledo,  taught  that  Christ  was  the  adopted  Son  of  God, 
and  not  his  Word,  coessential  with  the  Father.  Their 
errour  called  forth  unanimous  complaints  in  the  West, 
particularly  in  France,  whose  kings  then  possessed  the 
northern  part  of  Spain.  The  defenders  of  orthodoxy 
thought  they  had  found  an  excellent  weapon  against 
adaptivism  when  they  decided  that  the  Son  is  so  tho- 
roughly one  in  substance  with  the  Father,  that  the  Holy 
Spirit  proceeds  from  him  as  Avell  as  from  the  Father. 

*  It  seems  certain  that  the  addition  to  the  Creed  was  made  by  a  coancil  of  Toledo 
In  6S3,  and  was  confirmed  by  another  held  In  the  same  city  in  653.  N.  Alexander, 
Hist.  Eccl.  Dissert,  xxvii.  in  Ssecul.  Iv.  maintains  that  it  was  admitted  In  the  Coun- 
cil of  Toledo  In  5S9,  but  It  has  been  proved  that  the  acts  of  the  council  were  altered 
in  this  particular. 


THE   PAFACY.  327 

This  formula  was  looked  upon  as  the  bulwark  of  ortho- 
doxy, and  was  introduced  into  the  Creed,  to  which  was 
added,  in  consequence,  the  word  Filioque  {and  from  the 
Soil)  after  the  wford^  proceeding  from  the  Father. 

That  addition,  made  by  a  local  church  which  had  no 
pretensions  to  infallibility,  was  for  this  very  cause  irreg- 
ular. It  was  further  wrong  in  giving  a  conception  of 
the  Trinity  contrary  to  the  teaching  of  the  Scriptures, 
according  to  which  there  is  in  God  but  one  principle^ 
which  is  the  Father,  from  which  proceed,  from  all  eter- 
nity, the  Word  by  generation,  and  the  Spirit  by  proces- 
sion. As  the  quality  oi  a  principle  forms  the  distinctive 
character  of  the  Father's  joersona^^Yy,  it  evidently  cannot 
be  attributed  to  the  Word  without  ascribing  to  Him  that 
which  is  the  distinctive  attribute  of  another  Divine  Per- 
son. Thus  the  French  and  Spanish  bishops,  wishing  to 
defend  in  the  TTinitj  the  unity  of  essence  or  of  substance^ 
attacked  the  personal  distinction  and  confounded  the 
attributes  which  are  the  very  basis  of  that  distinction. 

Another  serious  errour  on  their  part  was  in  giving  a 
decision  without  first  ascertaining  that  the  words  which 
they  employed  were  authorized  by  Catholic  tradition. 
Outside  of  the  perpetual  and  established  doctrine,  no 
bishop  can  teach  any  thing  without  danger  of  falling 
into  the  most  serious  errours. 

The  dogmatic  truths  of  Christianity  relating  to  the 
very  essence  of  God — that  is,  of  the  Infinite — are  neces- 
sarily mysterious ;  hence  no  one  should  presume  to 
teach  them  of  his  own  authority.  Even  the  Church  \iQX- 
%q\{  ov\y  preserves  them  as  she  has  received  them.  Reve- 
lation is  a  deposit  confided  by  God  to  His  Church,  and 
not  a  philosophical  synthesis  which  may  be  modified. 
"Without  doubt  these  Spanish  and  French  bishops  had 
no  other  end  in  view  but  in  the  clearest  manner  to  ex- 
pound the  dogma  of  the  Trinity  ;  but  their  exposition, 
not  having  the  traditioncd  character,  was  an  errour. 


328  THE    PAPACY 

The  design  of  this  work  does  not  permit  us  to  dis- 
cuss thoroughly  the  question  of  the  procession  of  the 
Holy  Spirit.*  We  must  limit  ourselves  to  the  history 
of  this  Roman  addition. 

That  addition  was  first  adopted  in  Spain,  in  the 
seventh  century,  in  a  committee  at  Toledo,  and  was 
adopted  by  several  Western  churches.  In  YGVjConstan- 
tine  Copronymus  having  sent  some  ambassadors  to 
Pepin,  King  of  the  Franks,  this  prince  received  them  in 
an  assembly  known  as  the  Council  of  Gentilly.  As  the 
Greeks  were  accused  of  errour  respecting  the  worship 
of  images,  so  the  ambassadors  accused  the  Franks  of  er- 
rour concerning  the  Trinity,  and  in  having  added  the 
word  Filioque  to  the  creed.  The  details  of  the  discus- 
sion upon  this  subject  are  not  extant,  but  it  is  cei*- 
tain  that  the  addition  was  very  little  spread  through 
France  before  the  close  of  the  eighth  century,  when 
Elipand  and  Felix  d'Urgel  taught  their  errour.  The 
Council  of  Frioul,  in  V91,  saw  fit  to  oppose  them  by  ap- 
proving the  doctrine  of  the  procession  from  the  Father 
and  the  Son,  but  without  admitting  the  addition  of  the 
Filioque,  because  the  Fathers  who  composed  the  creed 
were  right  in  using  only  the  evangelical  expression, 
proceeding  from  the  Father. \ 

Felix  of  Urgel,  after  having  been  condemned  in  seve- 
ral councils,  was  banished  to  Lyons,  by  Charlemagne, 
in  VQO,  He  doubtless  propagated  his  errours  in  that 
city,  and  the  question  of  the  procession  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  was  discussed  there.     The  learned  Alcuin  wrote 

*  We  recommend  to  those  who  need  to  be  enlightened  upon  this  important  ques- 
tion the  treatise  published  by  Monseigneur  Macarius,  Archbishop  of  Krakow,  In  bis 
ThioJogie  Dogmatique  Orthodoxe.  This  learned  theologian  has  discussed  the 
question,  and  summed  up  the  labours  of  several  theolopians  of  the  Eastern  Church 
upon  the  subject,  in  such  a  manner  as  to  leave  no  doubt.  The  treatise  of  Monseig- 
nfeur  Macarius  is  one  of  the  most  learned  theological  works  that  we  have  read. 
[Theologie  Dogmatique  Orthodoxe,  French  edition,  vol.  1.  Paris:  Cherbuliez,  10 
Rue  de  la  Monnaie.] 

t  Father  Labbe,  Collection  of  Councils,  vol.  vIL 


THE  PAPACY.  329 

to  the  brethren  at  Lyons,  urging  them  both  to  avoid  the 
errours  of  the  Spanish  Bishop  and  also  any  interpolation 
of  the  creed.  "  Beloved  brethren,"  he  says,  "  look  well 
to  the  sects  of  the  Spanish  errour  ;  follow  in  the  faith 
the  steps  of  the  holy  Fathers,  and  remain  attached  to 
the  holy  Church  Universal  in  a  most  holy  unity.  It  has 
been  written,  '  Bo  not  overstep  the  limits  laid  dow7i  hy 
the  Fathers ;  insert  nothing  new  in  the  creed  of  the 
Catholic  faith,  and  in  religious  functions  be  not  pleased 
with  traditions  unknown  to  ancient  times.'  "* 

This  letter  was  written  in  804.  It  thus  appears  that 
at  the  beginning  of  the  ninth  century  the  addition  was 
already  condemned  in  France  by  the  most  learned  and 
pious  men.  Alcuin  also  censured,  as  we  see,  the  usage 
that  was  beginning  to  prevail  of  chaunting  the  creed  in 
the  service  instead  of  reciting  it. 

The  interpolation  in  the  creed  had,  nevertheless,  some 
advocates,  who,  five  years  later,  proposed,  in  a  council 
at  Aix-la-Chapelle,  to  solemnly  authorize  the  Filioque. 
They  met  with  opposition,  and  it  was  decided  to  refer 
the  question  to  Rome.  Leo  III.  was  then  Pope.  He 
compromised  the  matter.  Without  positively  rejecting 
the  doctrine  of  the  procession  from  the  Father  and  from 
the  Son,  he  censured  the  addition  made  to  the  creed.f 
He  even  saw  fit  to  transmit  to  posterity  his  protest 
against  any  innovation,  by  having  the  creed  engraved 
upon  two  tablets  of  silver  that  were  hung  in  St.  Peter's 
Church,  and  under  which  was  written  the  following  in- 
scription :  "  I,  Leo,  have  put  up  these  tablets  for  the  love 
and  preservation  of  the  orthodox  faith. ''^  The  deputies 
from  the  Council  of  Aix-la-Chapelle  had  needed  all  the 
resources  of  their  logic  and  erudition  to  persuade  Leo 
HI.  that  this  doctrine  of  the  procession  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  might  be  Catholic.     Their  erudition  was  inaccu- 

*  Alcuin  EpUt.  69.  tSlrmond'g  Concll.  Antlq.  Gall.,  vol.  IL 


330  THE   PAPACY. 

rate,  and  consequently  the  opinions  they  rested  upon 
it  were  not  true.  They  confounded  in  God  tfie  substance 
with  the  proper  character  of  the  divine  personality^  the 
essential  procession  of  the  Spirit  with  llis  mission  in  the 
world.*  Leo  III.,  although  he  gave  a  hearing  to  their 
arguments,  did  not  show  himself  any  more  favourable 
to  the  addition,  nor  even  to  the  chaunting  of  the  ei  ced 
in  the  services  of  the  Church. 

Nevertheless,  the  Creed  continued  to  be  chaunted 
with  the  addition  in  Spain  and  in  all  the  countries  sub- 
ject to  Charlemagne.  Rome  only  adopted  that  prac- 
tice at  the  commencement  of  the  eleventh  century, 
(about  1015,)  at  the  request  of  the  Emperor  Henry,  but 
she  seemed  to  agree  with  the  other  Western  churches 
as  to  the  substance  of  the  doctrine.  It  was  thus  that 
Photius  could  justly  reproach  the  Roman  Church  as  well 
as  other  Western  churches  with  admitting  an  innovation 
in  the  faith.  After  having  been  deposed  by  Nicholas, 
and  after  himself  condemning  that  Pope,  he  sent  to  the 
Eastern  Patriarchs  a  circular  letter,  in  which  he  thus 
expresses  himself  upon  the  question  of  the  Filioqxie  :\ 

"  Besides  the  gross  errours  we  have  mentioned,  they 
liave  striven,  by  false  interpretations  and  words  which 

♦  This  confusion  Is  at  the  bottom  of  all  the  arguments  of  the  Western  theologians 
to  this  day.  In  support  of  their  errour,  they  rely  upon  certain  texts  in  which  tho 
Fathers  speak  only  of  the  divine  substance  common  to  the  three  persons,  and  make 
no  mention  of  the  essential  character  of  the  personality  In  each  of  them.  This 
character  In  the  Father  Is  that  of  being  the  sole  principle  of  the  Son  by  generation, 
and  of  the  Spirit  by  j)rocessi<m.  Such  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Church,  including  the 
Roman  Church  herself.  She  admits  that  the  Father  is  the  sole  principle  in  the 
Trinity,  and  that  such  is  the  character  of  His  personality,  without  perceiving  that 
she  contradicts  herself  in  making  of  the  Son  another  principle  in  the  Trinity  by  her 
addition  of  Filioque,  since  she  makes  the  personal  action  of  the  Son  the  same  as 
that  of  the  Father  in  the  procession  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 

t  [The  editor  always  permits  the  Abb6  to  speak  for  himself  and  for  the  Greeks , 
but  it  must  not  be  inferred  that  he  admits  the  justice  of  all  that  is  here  quoted  from 
Photius,  nor  even  of  all  which  the  Greeks  still  charge  on  those  who  retain  the 
Filioque.  The  truth  Is,  the  Filioque  is  of  no  authority  at  all  In  the  Creed,  con- 
sidered as  the  Creed.  This  Is  confessed  by  Anglicans ;  but  It  U  retained  In  tho 
Liturgy  as  true  in  itself,  and  true  in  a  sense  not  at  all  conflicting  with  the  Greek 
OrtlMdoxy.l 


■  .a  S 

7'HE  PAPACY.  331 

they  have  added,  to  do  violence  to  the  holy  and  sacred 
Creed,  which  has  been  copfirmed  by  all  the  oecumenical 
councils,  and  possesses  irresistible  force.  O  diabolical 
inventions  !  Using  new  language,  they  affirm  that  the 
Holy  Spirit  does  not  proceed  from  the  Father  only,  but 
from  the  Son  also  !  Who  ever  heard  such  language, 
even  from  the  mouth  of  the  impious  of  past  ages ! 
Where  is  the  Christian  who  could  admit  two  causes  in 
the  Trinity,  that  is  to  say,  the  Father — cause  of  the  Son 
and  Holy  Spirit ;  and  the  Son  —  cav^e  of  the  same 
Spirit  ? 

"  This  is  to  divide  the  first  principle  into  a  double  divin- 
ity— it  is  to  lower  Christian  theology  to  the  level  of 
Grecian  mythology,  and  to  wrong  the  Trinity  incompre- 
hensible and  one  in  principle,  (ynepovaiov  Koi  novapxirfjs 
Tjjiuidot;.)  But  how  should  the  Holy  Spirit  proceed  from 
the  Son  ?  If  the  procession  He  holds  from  the  Father  is 
perfect,  (and  it  is  thus,  since  He  is  very  God  of  very 
God,)  what  is  this  procession  from  the  Son^  and  what  is 
its  object  ?  Certainly  it  is  a  vain  and  futile  thing.  More- 
over, if  the  Spirit  proceed  from  the  Son  as  well  as  the 
Fatlier,  why  is  not  the  Son  begotten  by  the  Spirit  as 
well  as  by  the  Father  ?  Let  them  say  this  in  order  that 
there  be  no  piety  mixed  with  their  impiety,  that  their 
opinions  may  agree  with  their  language,  and  they  may 
shrink  from  no  undertaking.  Let  us  consider  further, 
that  if  the  property  of  the  Holy  Spirit  be  known  in  that 
He  proceeds  from  the  Father,  the.  property  of  the  Son  like- 
wise consists  in  His  being  begotten  by  the  Father.  15ut 
as  they  in  their  madness  assert,  the  Spirit  proceeds  also 
from  the  Son  ;  hence  the  Spirit  is  distinguished  from  the 
Father  by  more  numerous  properties  than  the  Son,  since 
the  Spirit  proceeding  from  both,  is  something  common 
to  the  Father  and  to  the  Son.  The  procession  of  the 
Spirit  from  the  Father  and  the  Son  is  tlic  property  of 
the  Spirit.     If  the  Spirit  is  further  removed  from  the 


332  THE  PAPACY. 

Father  than  the  Son,  the  Son  must  be  nearer  to  the  sub- 
stance of  the  Father  than  the  Spirit.  Such  was  the 
origin  of  the  audacious  blasphemy  pronounced  against 
the  Holy  Spirit  by  Macedonius,  who  followed  without 
knowing  it  the  system  and  errour  of  those  who  teach 
it  in  these  days. 

"  Moreover,  if  all  be  common  between  the  Father 
and  the  Son,  assuredly  that  which  concerns  the  Holy 
Spirit  is  common  also,  namely,  that  He  must  be  God, 
King,  Creator,  Almighty,  Simple,  without  exterior  form, 
Incorporeal,  Invisible,  and  absolute  All.  Now  if  the 
procession  of  the  Spirit  be  common  to  the  Father  and 
to  the  Son,  then  the  Spirit  must  also  proceed  fiom  Him- 
self, He  is  His  own  principle — at  one  and  the  same  time 
cause  and  effect.  Even  the  Greeks  have  not  gone  to 
such  length  in  their  fables. 

"  One  more  reflection  :  if  it  were  the  property  of  the 
Spirit  alone  to  have  relation  to  difierent  principles,  He 
would  be  the  only  one  to  have  a  plural  principle  and 
not  a  single  one. 

"  Let  me  add  that  if,  in  the  things  where  there  is 
community  between  the  Father  and  Son,  the  Spirit  must 
be  excluded,  and  if  the  Father  be  one  with  the  Son  in 
substance  only  and  not  in  properties,  then  necessarily 
the  Holy  Spirit  can  have  nothing  in  common  except 
what  concerns  the  substance. 

"  You  see  how  little  the  advocates  of  this  errour  are 
entitled  to  the  name  of  Christians,  and  that  they  only 
take  it  to  deceive  others.  The  Spirit  proceeding  from 
the  Son  !  Where  hast  thou  learned  this  fact  that  thou 
assertest  ?  In  what  Gospel  hast  thou  found  this  word  ? 
To  what  council  belongs  such  blasphemy  ?" 

Photius  appeals  to  Scripture  and  Catholic  tradition 
against  the  Western  system.  He  adds  that  the  conse- 
quence of  this  system  is  that  there  are  in  God  four  per- 
sons or  hypostases  /  for  the  Spirit  having  a  double  priiu 


THE  PAPACY.  333 

cijyle^  is  a  Being  double  as  to  personality.  He  further 
unfolds  many  considerations  which  prove  in  him  a  pro- 
foundly philosophical  mind,  and  to  which  the  Western 
theologians  have  answered  nothing  to  the  purpose.* 
All  the  arguments  in  favour  of  pure  Catholic  tradition, 
prove  conclusively  that  particular  churches  never,  even 
with  the  best  intentions,  can  meddle  with  impunity  with 

the  sacred  deposit  of  Revelation.f  , 

Photius  brought  several  more  accusations  against  the 
Roman  Church.  He  knew  perfectly  that  each  particular 
church  was  entitled  to  its  own  regulations,  and  he  had 
laid  down  this  soundest  of  principles  in  opposition  to 
Nicholas  himself,  who  sought  to  impose  the  discipline 
of  the  Western  Church  upon  the  Eastern.  But  in  disci- 
pline we  should  distinguish  between  Apostolic  rules, 
which  have  a  character  of  universality,  and  private  reg- 
ulations. Now,  he  claimed  .that  the  Roman  Church 
violated  Apostolic  rules  of  discipline  upon  three  princi- 
pal points.  First,  in  imposing  the  fast  and  abstinence 
of  Saturday.  Secondly,  in  making  ecclesiastical  celiba- 
cy a  general  law.  Thirdly,  in  regarding  as  void  con- 
firmation given  by  priests  after  baptism.  The  Roman 
Bishop  Avho  had  been  sent  to  the  Bulgarians  had  trans- 
gressed the  principles  of  orthodoxy  so  far  as  to  repeat        / 

♦  The  reader  will  soon  be  of  our  opinion  If  he  will  read  without  prejudice  and  with 
an  unbiased  mind  the  treatise  of  Monseigneur  Macarius,  which  we  have  already  men- 
tioned, and  the  learned  work  of  Zcernicave,  who  devoted  almost  his  entire  life  to  the 
study  of  the  question  before  us  in  all  the  records  of  tradition.  The  works  of  such  as 
Perrone  and  Jager,  not  to  mention  the  rest,  are  very  meagre  as  compared  with  those 
we  speak  of.  This  last-named  author  claims  to  rest  his  arguments  upon  ontological 
considerations  to  prove  that  the  Father  is  the  sole  principle  in  the  Trinity,  although 
the  Son  is  so  also  with  him,  A  very  original  idea  indeed  to  resort  to  the  science  of 
the  human  being  in  order  to  eos/plain  the  Infinite  Being  !  And  besides,  the  reflec- 
tions of  the  Abb6  Jager,  and  those  authors  upon  whom  he  relies,  have  this  slight 
defect,  that  they  are  unintelligible  not  only  to  the  reader,  but  most  probably  to  the 
writers.     Ambiguous  phrases  never  make  a  good  argument  for  an  innovation. 

t  Among  the  letters  of  Photius  (Lib.  II.  ep.  24)  there  is  one  to  the  metropolitan  of 
Aquileia.  He  replies  to  the  texts  of  the  Latins  by  saying  that  if  ten  or  twenty  can 
be  found  in  favour  of  the  innovation,  there  can  be  found  six  hundred  against  it  \ 
whence  it  follows  that  tradition  will  always  remain  clear  on  this  point.  He  also 
works  out  the  same  arguments  as  in  his  encyclicalletter. 


334 


THE   PAPACY. 


the  sacrament  of  confirmation  to  those  who  had  received 
it  from  Greek  priests.  This  was  such  a  flagrant  viola- 
tion that  even  the  Romanists  do  not  defend  it. 

Photius,  in  bis  encyclical  letter,  appeals  to  all  the 
Apostolic  sees  of  the  East  against  the  innovations  of  the 
Italians.  He  concludes  by  entreating  them  to  adhere 
publicly  to  the  second  Nicene  Council,  to  proclaim  it 
the  seventh  cecumenical.,  and  to  declare  against  the  inno- 
vations of  the  barbarous  nations  of  the  West  who  under- 
take to  adulterate  the  true  doctrine. 

Photius  had  some  reason  to  consider  the  Western 
people  as  little  civilized.  Since  the  invasion  by  the 
tribes  which  had  transformed  the  West,  the  ecclesiastical 
schools  and  libraries  had  been  destroyed,  and  the  clergy 
were  profoundly  ignorant. 

Charlemagne  had  given  a  strong  impulse  to  letters ; 
but  in  spite  of  his  efforts  and  those  of  the  distinguished 
men  who  aided  him,  the  ecclesiastical  sciences  were  in 
their  infancy,  and  a  certain  joecZaw^ry  too  often  took  their 
place.  Now,  the  character  of  a  pedant  is  to  be  quite 
certain  about  every  thing.  The  innovators  therefore 
thought  they  had  done  a  work  of  high  religious  philoso- 
phy in  adding  to  the  Creed  those  words  of  which  Photius 
complained.  They  thought  they  had  defined  the  nature 
of  the  Trinity  better  than  the  Nicene  Council,  in  attribut- 
ing to  the  Son  the  personal  quality  of  the  Father  in  order 
to  prove  that  he  had  the  same  substance.  They  defended 
this  doctrine  by  some  misinterpreted  texts  from  the  Fa- 
thers, of  whom  they  possessed  very  few  works,  and  thus 
they  set  up  a  false  opinion  as  a  dogma.,  without  regard 
to  the  testimony  of  the  Apostolic  churches  of  the  East. 
They  consulted  the  Popes  ;  but  the  Popes,  who  were 
themselves  very  ignorant,  swayed  on  the  one  hand  by 
the  reasoning  of  men  whom  they  thought  learned,  and, 
on  the  other  hand,  desiring  to  avail  themselves  of  this 
opportunity  to  do  an  act  of  sovereign  authority,  yielded 


THE   PAPACY,  336 

and  sanctioned  the  innovation,  even  while  they  resisted 
its  introduction  into  the  Creed. 

Thus  was  Rome  iofluenced  by  errour  in  the  interest 
of  her  assumed  sovereignty.  And  hence  Nicholas  felt 
that  the  Papacy  itself  was  attacked  by  the  encyclical 
letter  of  Photius.  At  a  loss  how  to  reply,  he  applied  to 
those  scholars  who,  in  the  Church  of  France,  were  the 
avowed  champions  of  the  innovation.  Photius  had  taken 
no  notice  of  the  Latin  innovations  so  long  as  they  re- 
mained in  the  West,  and  perhaps  only  knew  of  them 
vaguely.  But  when  the  Roman  priests  spread  them 
through  Bulgaria,  in  defiant  opposition  to  the  doctrine 
of  the  Eastern  Church,  and  among  a  people  brought  into 
the  faith  by  the  Church  of  Constantinople,  he  could  be 
silent  no  longer,  and  he  drew  up  against  the  Roman 
Church  such  a  bill  of  attainder  as  shall  endure  for  ever 
as  a  protest  against  the  abuses  and  errours  of  which  she 

V  has  been  guilty. 

Nicholas  so  far  humbled  himself  that  he  applied  to 
Hincmar,  a  famous  Archbishop  of  Rheims,  who  had 
resisted  his  autocratic  pretensions.  He  felt  he  had 
need  of  this  great  theologian  of  the  West  to  resist  Pho- 
tius. He  had  received  the  accusations  of  that  Patriarch 
through  the  Prince  of  Bulgaria.  "  In  reading  that  pa- 
per," he  says,*  "  we  have  concluded  that  the  writers 

•  dipped  their  pen  in  the  lake  of  blasphemy,  and  that 
instead  of  ink  they  used  the  mire  of  errour.  They  con- 
demn not  only  our  Church,  but  the  whole  Latin  Church, 
because  we  fast  on  Saturday  and  teach  that  the  Holy 
Ghost  proceeds  from  the  Father  and  the  Son  ;  for  they 
maintain  that  He  proceeds  from  the  Father  only."  Nich- 
olas sums  up  some  further  complaints  of  the  Greeks. 
Some  of  them  are  not  to  be  found  in  the  circular  of  Pho- 
tius to  the  Easterns.  "  What  is  still  more  senseless,"  he 
adds,  "  before  receiving  our  legates,  they  would  oblige 

*  Nichol.  Epist  in  Labbe'g  Collection,  vol.  vUi. 


336  ^^^  FAI>ACY. 

them  to  make  a  profession  of  faith,  in  which  these  arti- 
cles and  those  who  have  maintained  them  are  anathe- 
matized, and  to  present  canonical  letters  to  him  whom 
they  call  their  oecumenical  Patriarch."  We  perceive  by 
this  that  the  Easterns,  in  order  to  preserve  the  ancient 
faith  and  discipline  against  Roman  innovations,  resorted 
to  all  the  means  in  their  power. 

It  is  impossible  to  share  the  opinion  of  Nicholas,  who 
chose  to  regard  as  foolish  measures  of  caution  both  per- 
fectly legitimate  and  canonical,  which  were  only  wrong 
inasmuch  as  they  were  an  obstacle  to  bis  ambitious 
projects. 

Having  exhibited  his  grievances  against  the  Easterns, 
Nicholas  commanded  ail  the  Metropolitans  to  assemble 
Provincial  Councils,  reply  to  the  accusations  of  Photius, 
and  send  the  result  of  their  delibei-ations  to  Hincmar  of 
Rheims,  who  would  transmit  them  to  him.  The  Bishops 
of  France  assembled.  Several  of  them  entered  the  lists 
against  the  Easterns,  particularly  ^neas  of  Pai*is.  Ra- 
tramn,  a  monk  of  Corbey,  composed  the  most  learned 
work.  No  one  could  have  done  better  in  the  defence 
of  a  bad  cause.  At  a  time  when  the  records  of  tradition 
were  very  rare  in  the  West,  it  was  difficult  to  compile 
from  them  any  complete  instruction.  The  Frankic  divines 
therefore  quoted  in  their  favour  only  a  few  texts,  of  which 
many  were  from  apocryphal  works.  Photius  seems  to 
allude  to  these  labours  when  he  says  in  his  letter  to  the 
Metropolitan  of  Aquileia,  that  if  one  could  quote  ten  or 
twenty  Fathers  in  favour  of  the  opinions  of  the  Latins, 
one  might  quote  six  hundred  in  support  of  the  belief  of 
the  Church.  The  historical  facts  adduced  by  Ratramn  in 
proof  of  the  Roman  primacy  are  completely  distorted  for 
want  of  proper  information  ;  and,  besides,  in  defending 
that  primacy,  he  had  no  intention  whatever  to  maintain 
a  sovereignty  of  divine  right.  His  reasoning  and  his 
quotations,  like  those  of-^Eneas,  respecting  the  celibacy 


THE  PAPACY,  337 

of  the  priesthood,  did  not  reach  that  question  ;  for  tho 
Easterns  did  not  disapprove  of  celibacy  in  itself  con- 
sidered, but  only  as  a  general  law  imposed  upon  the 
clergy.  In  this  light  celibacy  ceilainly  changed  the  gen- 
eral discipline  of  the  primitive  Church,  and  the  Easterns 
were  right  in  attacking  it  on  this  ground. 

Under  John  VIII.  the  question  of  the  Procession  of 
the  Holy  Ghost  changed  its  character  at  Rome  like  that 
of  the  elevation  of  Photius  to  the  Patriarchal  chair. 
The  addition  of  the  FUioqtie  made  to  the  Nicene  Creed 
in  the  West  was  solemnly  condemned  in  the  sixth  ses- 
sion of  the  council  of  879.  The  legates  of  the  Pope, 
those  of  the  Eastern  Patriarchal  sees,  and  all  the  bishops 
concurred  in  that  condemnation. 

The  Pope,'  upon  receiving  the  transactions,  wrote  to 
Photius  :* 

"  We  know  the  unfavourable  accounts  that  you  have 
heard  concerning  us  and  our  Church  ;  I  therefore  wish 
to  explain  myself  to  you  even  before  you  write  to 
me  on  the  subject.  You  are  not  ignorant  that  your 
envoy,  in  discussing  the  Creed  with  us,  found  that  we 
preserved  it  as  we  originally  received  it,  without  adding 
to  or  taking  any  thing  from  it ;  for  we  know  what  severe 
punishment  he  would  deserve  who  should  dare  to  tam- 
per with  it.  To  set  you  at  ease,  therefore,  upon  this 
subject,  which  has  been  a  cause  of  scandal  to  the  Church, 
we  again  declare  to  you  that  not  only  do  we  thus  recite 
it,  but  even  condemn  those  who,  in  their  folly,  have  had 
the  audacity  to  act  otherwise  from  the  begmning,  as 
violators  of  the  divine  word,  and  falsifiers  of  the  doctrine 
of  Christ,  of  the  Apostles,  and  of  the  Fathers,  who  have 
transmitted  the  Creed  to  us  through  the  councils ;  we 
declare  that  their  portion  is  that  of  Judas,  because  they 
have  acted  like  him,  since,  if  it  be  not  the  body  of  Christ 
itself  which  they  put  to  death,  it  is,  at  all  events,  the 

*  Joann.  viU.  tpisU 


338  THE   PAPACY. 

faithful  of  God  who  are  his  members,  whom  they  tear 
by  schism,  giving  them  up,  as  well  as  themselves,  to 
eternal  death,  as  also  did  that  base  Apostle.  Never- 
theless, I  think  that  your  Holiness,  so  full  of  wisdom, 
is  aware  of  the  difficulty  of  making  our  bishops  share 
this  opinion,  and  of  changing  at  once  so  important  a 
practice  which  has  taken  root  for  so  many  years.  We 
therefore  believe  it  is  best  not  to  force  any  one  to  aban- 
don that  addition  to  the  Creed,  but  we  must  act  with 
moderation  and  prudence,  little  by  little,  exhorting  them 
to  renounce  that  blasphemy.  Thus,  then,  those  who 
accuse  us  of  sharing  this  opinion  do  not  speak  the  truth. 
But  those  who  say  that  there  are  persons  left  among  us 
who  dare  to  recite  the  Creed  in  this  manner,  are  not 
very  far  from  the  truth.  Your  Holiness  should  not  be 
too  much  scandalized  on  our  account,  nor  withdraw  from 
the  healthy  part  of  the  body  of  our  Church,  but  zealously 
contribute  by  your  gentleness  and  prudence  to  the  con- 
version of  such  as  have  departed  from  the  truth,  so 
that  with  us,  you  may  deserve  the  promised  reward. 
Hail  in  the  Lord,  worthily  venerated  and  catholic 
brother !" 

John  VIH.  spoke  particularly  of  the  additioti ;  but 
the  expressions  he  used  prove  that  he  condemned  the 
doctrine,  as  well,  which  that  addition  represented.  The 
word  would  have  been  no  blasphemy  if  it  had  expressed 
a  truth.  The  Papacy  was  changeful,  then,  as  to  the 
doctrine ;  it  hesitated  under  Leo  HI.  ;  it  approved  the 
new  dogma  under  Nicholas  I. ;  it  rejected  it  as  blas- 
phemous under  John  VIH.* 

After  having  ascertained  this  principal  Roman  inno- 

•  Several  Western  writers  have  endeavoured  to  disprove  the  authenticity  of  this 
letter  of  John  VIII.  Their  arguments  cannot  counterbalance  this  fact,  that  this  let 
ter  was  published  from  Western  manuscripts.  Had  the  Easterns  invented  It,  as  the 
Romanists  maintain  without  any  proof,  it  would  have  come  from  the  East  to  the 
West,  while  it  really  went  from  the  West  to  the  East.  This  certain  fact  speaks  louder 
than  all  their  dlBsertations,  and  answers  every  objection. 


THE   PAPACY.  339 

vation,  let  us  now  continue  our  account  of  the  Roman 
enterprises  against  the  East. 

John  VIII.  being  dead,  Marin*  was  elected  Bishop  of 
Rome.  He  had  been  one  of  the  legates  of  Nicholas  in 
Bulgaria  and  at  the  council  of  869.  It  could  not,  there- 
fore, be  hoped  that  he  would  follow  the  course  of  his 
immediate  predecessor.  It  is  thought  that  it  was  he 
who  carried  to  Constantinople  the  letters  of  John  ap- 
proving the  council  of  879,  except  in  those  things 
wherein  the  legates  had  exceeded  their  powers.  This 
exception  was  a  mere  formality ;  for  he  had  received  the 
acts ;  knew  perfectly  what  had  happened ;  very  modestly 
urged  Photius  not  to  take  it  amiss,  that  he  had  demand- 
ed a  submission  from  him;  and  knew  the  Patriarch 
had  not  been  willing  to  make  one,  for  this  reason,  that 
only  the  guilty  should  beg  pardon.f  Marin  could  not 
concur  with  the  council  of  879,  without  condemning 
that  of  869,  of  which  he  had  been  one  of  the  presi- 
dents. He,  therefore,  refused,  when  he  was  at  Constan- 
tinople, to  condemn  himself  by  condemning  that  council, 
and  the  Emperor  Basil  detained  him  a  prisoner  one 
month  for  this  cause. 

Raised  to  the  Roman  episcopate,  (882,)  Marin  had 
a  grudge  to  satisfy.  He  hastened  to  condemn  Pho- 
tius. But  his  pontificate  was  short,  and  in  884  he  was 
succeeded  by  Adrian  III.,  who  also  condemned  the  Pa- 
triarch of  Constantinople.  The  Emperor  Basil  wrote 
very  energetic  letters  to  this  Pope,  but  they  only  arrived 
at  Rome  after  his  death,  and  were  delivered  to  his  suc- 
cessor, Stephen  V.,  (885,)  who  had  been  the  intimate 
friend  and  confidant  of  Marin,  against  whom  the  Empe- 
ror's letters  were  particularly  directed.  Stephen  under- 
took his  defence.  We  will  quote  some  passages  of  his 
letter,  which  are  well  worthy  of  notice.J     "  As  God  has 

♦  Known  also  as  Martin  11.  +  Joann.  vlU.  Eplst 

$  Steph.  V.  Eplst.  Labbe's  Collection,  vol.  Ix. 


340  THE   PAPACY. 

given  you  the  sovereignty  of  temporal  things,  in  like 
manner  we  have  received  from  him^  through  St.  Peter, 
Prince  of  the  Apostles,  the  sovereignty  of  spiritual 
things.  To  us  is  committed  the  care  of  the  flock  ; 

this  care  is  as  much  more  excellent  as  the  heavens  are 
above  the  earth.  Hear  what  the  Lord  said  to  Peter, 
Thou  art  Peter,  etc.  I  therefore  entreat  your  Piety  to 
honour  the  name  and  dignity  of  the  Prince  of  the  Apos- 
tles by  conforming  to  his  decrees ;  for  the  episcopate  in 
all  the  churches  on  earth  owes  its  origin  to  St.  Peter,  by 
Vvhom  we  instruct  all  the  faithful,  teaching  them  whole- 
some and  incorruptible  doctrine." 

Here  is  a  clear  enunciation  of  Papal  sovereignty  and 
Papal  infallibility  of  divine  right.  Stephen  pretends 
that  the  legates  of  Pope  Sylvester,  at  the  first  Council 
of  Nicea,  established  this  principle,  "  That  the  frst 
bishop  could  not  be  judged  by  any  one."  Such  an  as- 
sertion was  worthy  of  the  erudition  of  that  age.  As  a 
consequence  of  his  doctrine  of  the  episcopal  character, 
Stephen  claims  that  Photius  never  was  any  thing  but  a 
layman,  since  he  did  not  derive  his  episcopate  from 
Rome. 

"Did  not  the  Roman  Church,"  he  adds,  "  write  to 
you  to  hold  a  council  at  Constantinople  ?  I  ask  you,  to 
whom  could  it  write  ?  To  Photius,  a  layman  ?  If  yjou 
had  a  Patriarch,  our  Church  would  often  visit  him  by 
letters.  But,  alas !  the  glorious  city  of  Constantinople 
is  without  a  pastor,  and  if  the  aff*ection  that  we  bear 
toward  you  did  not  lead  us  to  bear  patiently  the  insult 
to  our  Church,  we  should  be  obliged  to  pronounce 
against  the  prevaricator,  Photius,  who  has  so  basely 
spoken  against  us,  more  -severe  penalties  than  our  pre- 
decessors. We  do  not  presume,  in  thus  speaking,  to 
fail  in  the  respect  due  to  you ;  we  speak  in  our  own  de-. 
fence  and  that  of  Pope  Marin,  who  held  the  same  senti- 
ments as  Pope  Nicholas." 


THE   PAPACY.  341 

Thns  Nicholas  had  bequeathed  to  Marin  the  senti- 
ments which  the  latter  had  bequeathed  to  Stephen.  As 
for  the  acts  of  John  VIIL,  they  were  completely  ignored. 
Photius  did  not  change  as  easily  as  the  Popes,  and  he 
followed  the  rules  of  ancient  law  with  moderation  and 
intelligence. 

It  appears  from  the  letter  of  Stephen  V.  that  the  Pa- 
pacy was  no  longer  so  very  defiant  toward  the  emperors 
of  the  East.  The  Roman  empire  of  the  West  had  crum- 
bled with  Charlemagne.  From  its  fragments  had 
sprung  a  thousand  little  independent  states,  for  ever 
quarreling  among  themselves.  The  feudal  system  was 
organizing;  The  Papacy  no  longer  saw  a  powerful 
prince  at  hand  to  protect  it.  Rome  itself  was  a  prey 
to  the  quarrels  of  several  hostile  parties.  Meanwhile 
the  Mussulmans  continued  their  conquests.  Checked  in 
the  East  by  the  Emperor  Basil,  they  were  pouring  in 
upon  the  West,  and  Rome  itself  was  threatened.  John 
VIII.  knew  that  Rome  could  obtain  better  aid  from  the 
Emperor  of  the  East  than  from  the  divided  princes  of 
the  West.  His  successors,  with  less  cleverness,  implored 
the  same  assistance  without  sacrificing  any  of  their  con- 
temptible personal  grudges.  It  was  only  fair  that  they 
should  not  succeed. 

Had  the  Papacy  been  happily  inspired,  it  might  have 
availed  itself  of  its  influence  in  the  West  to  arouse  the 
Princes  against  the  Mussulmans,  and  unite  them  with  the 
Emperor  of  the  East  in  that  great  stiniggle.  But  Rome 
preferred  to  indulge  her  antipathies  against  a  Church 
which  set  up  the  doctrine  and  laws  of  the  primitive 
Church  in  opposition  to  her  usurpations.  She  aroused 
the  West  as  much  against  the  Eastern  Christians  as 
against  the  Mussulmans,  and  thus  introduced  a  radical 
fault  in  those  great  movements  of  nations  known  as  the 
Crusades.  The  conception  of  these  .expeditions  was 
grand,  and  for  the  West  it  led  to  some  useful  results. 


342  THE  PAPACY. 

We  do  not  deny  it ;  but  historical  impartiality  demands 
that  it  should  be  confessed,  at  the  same  time,  that  the 
Papacy,  which  set  these  expeditions  on  foot,  failed  to 
give  them  the  character  of  grandeur  they  would  have 
had,  if,  instead  of  circumscribing  them  to  the  West,  it 
had  united  in  a  fraternal  embrace  the  Eastern  Christians 
with  the  Crusaders.  Rome  sacrificed  all  to  her  hatred  of 
the  Eastern  Church. 

The  Emperor  Basil  died  shortly  after  receiving  the 
letter  of  Pope  Stephen  V.  Leo,  the  Philosopher,  son  of 
Basil,  succeeded  him  upon  the  throne  of  the  East.  He 
drove  Photius  from  the  see  of  Constantinople,  to  put 
there  his  own  brother  Stephen.  As  a  pretext  for  this 
usurpation,  he  sent  two  of  his  officers  to  the  Church  of 
Saint  Sophia,  who  ascended  the  pulpit  and  publicly 
read  oflf  the  crimes  w^hich  it  pleased  the  Emperor  to 
impute  to  Photius ;  and  the  Patriarch  was  next  accused 
of  having  been  concerned  in  a  plot,  the  object  of  which 
was  to  place  one  of  his  relatives  on  the  throne.  Not 
a  single  proof  of  this  charge  could  be  adduced. 
Then  Leo  had  Bishop  Stylien  brought  to  court,  who 
was  a  personal  enemy  of  Photius,  and  the  two  composed 
an  infamous  letter  for  the  Pope  (a.d.  886)  in  which  they 
collected  all  the  accusations  of  the  enemies  of  Photius — 
accusations  which  had  been  declared  to  be  calumnies  by 
John  VIIL,  and  by  a  council  of  four  hundred  bishops. 
This  letter  of  Stylien  is  one  of  the  principal  documents 
of  which  the  Western  writers  have  made  use  in  their 
accounts  of  what  they  call  the  schism  of  the  East* 

Its  value  may  be  estimated  at  a  glance.  Stylien's 
letter  only  arrived  at  Rome  after  Stephen's  death,  (891.) 
Formosus,  his  successor,  replied  that  Photius  had  never 
been  any  thing  more  than  a  layman;  that  the  bishops 
whom  he  had  ordained  were  likewise  nothing  but  lay- 

•  The  Abb6  Jager  innocently  says,  "  The  letter  of  Stylien  Is  a  historic  monument 
upon  which  we  have  frequently  drawn."    Hist,  of  Phot,  book  ix.  p.  887,  edit.  1854. 


THE   PAPACY.  843 

men ;  that  he  was  therefore  condemned  without  need  of 
any  trial ;  that  the  bishops,  his  adherents,  should  be  treat- 
ed with  mercy,  but  only  as  laymen.*  The  Pope  who 
wrote  this  answer  was  exhumed  by  Pope  Stephen  VL 
His  putrescent  corpse  was  cited,  judged,  and  condemned. 
John  IX.  reversed  this  judgment  of  Stephen  VI.  These 
facts  and  the  atrocious  immoralities  of  the  Popes  of  that 
period  are  covered  by  Romanists  with  a  veil  of  complais- 
ance. They  have  anathemas  only  for  a  great  Patriarch 
who,  by  his  virtues  and  ecclesiastical  learning,  deserves 
to  rank  with  the  most  illustrious  bishops  of  the  Church. 
There  is  no  doubt  that  Photius  died  the  same  year  that 
Formosus  wrote  his  famous  letter  to  Stylien  against 
him,  that  is,  in  891.  f 

The  Eastern  Church  holds  Ignatius  and  Photius  in 
equal  veneration.  She  has  declared  anathemas  against 
all  that  has  been  written  against  either  of  them.  She  is  per- 
fectly wise  in  this  decision.  It  was  her  will  that  these  two 
Patriarchs  should  be  judged  by  themselves  and  by  their 
own  writings,  without  reference  to  other  writings  dictat- 
ed by  passion.  Now,  Ignatius  wrote  nothing  against 
Photius  ;  and  the  latter,  in  his  numerous  writings,  never 
attacked  Ignatius.  After  the  restoration  of  Ignatius, 
and  the  reconciliation  of  Photius  with  the  Emperor 
Basil,  they  saw  each  other,  forgave  each  other,  and  it 
may  be  said  that  Ignatius  died  in  the  arms  of  Photius 
according  to  what  this  latter  Patriarch  declared  before 
four  hundred  bishops  in  the  council  of  8V9. 

It  is  therefore  dishonest  to  appeal  to  the  testimony  of 
a  few  enemies  of  Photius  who  were  Greeks,  on  the 
ground  that  they  belonged  to  the  Eastern  Church.  That 
Church  has  disowned  them,  and  has  had  the  wisdom  to 

*  See  Labbe's  Collection  of  Councils,  vols.  vlU.  and  Ix. 

t  M.  Jager,  who  thinks  himself  a  historian  of  some  weight,  says  that  Photius 
died  in  891,  adding  that  this  was  several  years  after  the  letter  of  Formosus.  That 
letter,  however,  as  well  as  the  pontificate  of  Formosus  only  dates  from  the  year  891, 
Stephen  V.,  his  predecessor,  having  died  only  the  same  year. 


344  THE  PAPACY. 

warn  her  faithful  that  calumnies  inspired  by  blind 
hatred,  whether  they  come  from  Greeks  or  Latins,  are 
alike  to  be  condemned.* 

Stylien,  Bishop  of  Neo-Csesarea,  and  an  enemy  to  Pho- 
tins,  remained  in  correspondence  with  the  Popes  after 
the  death  of  that  Patriarch.  John  IX.  wrote  to  him  in 
the  year  900,f  to  this  effect,  "Ti  is  <yur  will  that  the 
decrees  of  our  predecessors  (concerning  the  Patriarchs 
of  Constantinople)  should  remain  inviolate ;"  but  this 
Pope  did  not  attempt  to  reconcile  those  of  John  VIII. 
with  those  of  Nicholas,  both  of  whom  were  equally  his 
predecessors.  Five  years  after,  the  court  of  Rome  had 
some  relations  with  the  East,  to  sanction  an  act  of  injustice. 
The  Emperor  Leo  VI.  having  married  for  the  fourth  time, 
had  thereby  violated  the  discipline  of  the  Eastern  Church, 
sanctioned  even  by  civil  laws.  The  Patriarch  Nicholas 
besought  him  to  have  the  case  examined  by  the  five 
Patriarchal  churches.  Leo  feigned  to  consent,  and  wrote 
to  Sergius  III.,  Pope  of  Rome,  to  Michael,  Pope  of  Alex- 
andria, J  to  Simeon,  Patriarch  of  Antioch,  and  Elias, 
Patriarch  of  Jerusalem.  The  Patriarchs  sent  legates. 
The  Emperor  bribed  them.  The  faithful  bishops  were 
exiled,  Nicholas  was  deposed,  and  Euthymius  put  in 
his  place;  and,  finally,  a  dispensation  was  granted  to 
the  Emperor  for  his  fourth  marriage.     Thus  did  Rome 

*  The  Abb6  Jager  sees  an  astonishing  contradiction  in  the  conduct  of  the  Greek 
Church.  (Hist,  of  Phot,  book  ii.  p.  392).  This  ii  the  fault  of  his  eyes,  which  by 
the  effect  of  a  singular  mirage  have  made  him  see  things  quite  different  from  what 
they  are  in  reality.  A  historian  who  starts  with  the  principle  of  only  listeninR  to 
the  enemies  of  the  person  whose  history  he  is  about  to  write,  must  necessarily  Dnd 
contradictions  in  those  who  have  followed  an  opposite  course.  The  question  is, 
whether  in  judging  a  man  it  is  expedient  to  refer  exclusively  to  his  enemies.  There 
is  in  the  work  of  the  Abbfe  Jager  a  contradiction  much  more  astonishing  ihHn  that 
which  he  imputes  to  the  Greek  Church.  It  is  the  Satanio  character  he  ascribes  to 
Photius,  side  by  side  with  that  which  shows  forth  from  tlie  letters  he  has  quoted  of 
this  great  man.  Mr.  Jager  did  not  perceive  that  Photius,  by  his  letters,  belles  all 
these  infamous  accusations  that  he  renewed  against  him. 

+  See  Collection  of  Councils,  by  Father  Labbe,  vol.  ix. 

X  Tlie  Patriarch  of  Alexandria  took  the  title  of  Pope  as  well  as  the  Bishop  of  Rome, 
and  still  preserves  iC 


THE  PAPACY.  345 

sustain  the  unjust  deposition  of  a  Patriarch  who  was 
guilty  of  nothing  more  than  of  maintaining  the  rules  of 
church  discipline.  For  in  all  things  she  acted  less  in 
accordance  with  justice  than  with  her  own  interest.  If 
she  had  taken  the  part  of  Ignatius,  it  was  because  she 
feared  the  opposition  of  Photius  to  her  sovereignty.  If 
she  so  readily  sacrificed  Nicholas,  it  was  in  order  to  do 
an  act  of  authority  in  the  East.  Power  was  her  sole 
object.  Pope  Sergius  could  not  indeed  be  fastidious 
upon  the  subject  of  the  illicit  marriage  of  Leo,  for  he 
was  himself  the  lover  of  the  infamous  Marozia,  and  had 
by  this  adulterous  connection  a  son,  who  was  a  Pope  like 
himself*  Such  a  Pope  could  not  understand  the  deli- 
cacy of  conscience  of  the  Patriarch  Nicholas.  After  the 
death  of  the  Emperor  Leo,  Euthymius  was  driven  away 
and  Nicholas  reinstated.  This  Patriarch  was  even  placed 
at  the  head  of  the  regency  during  the  minority  of  the 
young  Emperor  Constantino,  sumamed  Porphyrogenitus. 
Reinstalled  in  his  see,  he  wrote  (a.d.  912)  to  Pope  An- 
astasius  IIL,  the  successor  of  Sergius,  to  complain  of  the 
conduct  of  his  legates  at  Constantiople.  "  They  seem,"  f 
he  wrote,  "  to  have  come  from  Rome  for  no  other  pur- 
pose than  to  declare  war  against  us,  but  since  they 
claimed  the  primacy/  in  the  Churchy  they  ought  carefully 
to  have  ascertained  the  whole  affair,  and  written  a  report 
of  it,  instead  of  consenting  to  the  condemnation  of  those 
who  had  incurred  the  displeasure  of  the  Prince  only  for 
their  detestation  of  incontinency.  It  is  not,  indeed,  to  be 
wondered  at  that  two  or  three  men  should  be  taken  by 
surprise;  but  who  could  have  supposed  that  Western 
bishops  would  confirm  that  unjust  sentence  by  their 
votes  without  knowledge  of  the  cause  ?    I  learn  that  the 

•  Rome  was  then  governed  by  three  prostltoteB,  Theodora  and  her  two  daughterB 
Marozia  and  Theodora,  who  disposed  of  the  Popedom  in  favour  of  their  lovers  and 
adulterine  children. 

t  NicoL  Kplst.  in  the  Collection  of  the  Councils,  toL  Ix.  Appendix. 


346  THE   PAPACY. 

pretext  of  dispensation  is  brought  forward,  as  if  by  a 
dispensation  debauchery  could  be  authorized  and  the 
canons  violated.  Dispensation,  if  I  am  not  mistaken,  is 
intended  to  imitate  the  mercy  of  God ;  it  extends  its 
hand  to  the  sinner  and  lifts  him  up,  but  it  does  not  per- 
mit him  to  remain  in  the  sin  into  which  he  has  fallen." 

This  perfectly  just  doctrine  was  not  that  of  Romq. 
At  one  time,  under  pretence  of  observing  the  canons, 
she  would  throw  an  entire  kingdom  into  confusion,  as 
under  Nicholas  I.,  in  relation  to  the  marriage  of  Illoter; 
then  again  she  could  give  dispensation  without  difficulty 
in  equally  important  cases.  This  was  because  her  study 
was  always  to  establish  the  principle  of  her  absolute 
power  over  laws  as  well  as  men.  Her  will  was  her  law, 
and  the  interest  of  her  sovereignty  her  only  rule. 

The  Patriarch  Nicholas  felt  the  consequences  of  the 
palace  intrigues  ;  he  was  banished  and  again  reinstated. 
Peace  was  finally  reestablished  in  920,  by  an  imperial 
decree  which  again  recognized  the  discipline  for  which 
Nicholas  had  suffered  persecution.  This  Patriarch  wrote 
to  Pope  John  X.  to  renew  friendly  relations  between 
the  churches  of  Rome  and  Constantinople.  But  John 
X.  was  more  engrossed  by  his  adulterous  amours  with 
Theodora,  Marozia's  sister,  than  by  the  affairs  of  the 
Church. 

For  a  century  there  was  scarcely  any  intercourse 
between  the  churches  of  Rome  and  Constantinople; 
which  did  not  tend  to  retlnite  them  in  matters  of  doc- 
trine.* In  1024  the  Patriarch  Eustathius  attempted  to 
have  himself  recognized  at  Rome  as  the  ecclesiastical 
chief  of  the  East,  in  the  same  way  as  the  Pope  was 
chief  of  the  West.  His  envoys  were  on  the  point  of 
succeeding — thanks  to  their  money,  of  which  the  court 
of  Rome  was  very  greedy ;  but  the  intrigue  transpired, 

•  Nat  Alex,  in  Hist  Eccl.  Dissert.  IV.  Saecul.  be.  et  x. 


THE   PAPACY.  347 

and  caused  some  agitation,  principally  in  Italy.  The 
court  of  Rome  did  not  dare  to  go  further.  This  fact 
proves,  at  least,  that  the  Bishops  of  Rome  and  Constan- 
tinople were  not  at  strife.  Those  of  Rome  were  mostly 
unworthy  of  their  place ;  their  political  business  and 
the  struggles  which  prevailed  in  most  of  the  Western 
churches  were  as  much  as  they  could  attend  to,  and 
they  did  not  trouble  themselves  with  the  Eastern 
churches,  where  their  sovereignty  was  always  opposed. 
But  the  contest  recommenced  in  1053,  when  Leo  IX. 
was  Bishop  of  Rome. 

Having  received  letters  of  communion  from  Peter, 
the  new  Patriarch  of  Antioch,  Leo  affected,  in  liis  an- 
swer, to  tell  him  that  he  held  the  third  rank  in  the  Pa- 
triarchate, thus  ignoring  the  Patriarch  of  Constanti- 
nople, notwithstanding  the  decrees  of  the  oecumenical 
councils,  which  had  given  him  the  second  rank,  the 
third  to  the  Patriarch  of  Alexandria,  and  the  fourth  to 
the  Patriarch  of  Antioch.  At  that  time  Michael  Ceru- 
larius  was  Patriarch  of  Constantinople  ;  he  had  written 
a  letter  to  John,  Bishop  of  Trani,  against  several  disci- 
plinary or  liturgical  practices  of  the  Latin  Church.* 
Cardinal  Humbert  having  read  this  letter  at  the  Bish- 
op's house,  translated  it  into  Latin  and  sent  it  to  Pope 
Leo  IX.  The  Pope  wrote  to  the  Patriarch  of  Constan- 
tinople in  unmeasured  terms.  The  Patriarch  then  wrote 
a  second  letter  against  the  Latins,  completing  his  accu- 
sations. The  most  serious  one  was  that  of  adding  the 
Filioque  to  the  Creed.  Leo  IX.  should  have  calmly 
answered  these  accusations  ;  proved  that  many  of  them 
were  unfounded ;  and  excused  several  Latin  usages 
upon  the  principle  that  discipline  may  vary  in  different 
countries,  provided  the  regulations  of  the  Apostles  and 
of  the  oecumenical  councils  are  kept  inviolate  ;  confessed, 

*  This  letter  may  be  found  In  the  Annals  of  Baronlus.    See  Letters  of  Leo  IX.  ia 
the  Collection  of  Councils.    Nat.  Alexand.  Hist.  Eccl.  Synop.  Stecul,  xl.  c.  Iv. 


348  THE  PAPACY, 

in  fine,  that  many  of  the  accusations  made  by  the  Patri- 
arch were  just,  and  undertaken  the  reform  of  .the  West- 
ern Church.  But  Leo  IX.  only  cared  for  the  injury  that 
he  thouglit  was  done  to  his  pretensions  as  sovereign 
head  of  the  Church,  and  he  wrote  to  Michael  Cerularins 
under  the  influence  of  that  thought.* 

After  a  long  exordium  upon  the  unity  of  the  Church, 
he  claims  that  unity  to  be  in  the  Roman  Church,  which 
has  received  that  high  prerogative  from  God  through 
St.  Peter.  That  Church  having  received  as  its  founda- 
tion Jesus  Christ  through  St.  Peter,  is  the  unshaken 
rock  against  which  the  gates  of  hell  shall  never  prevail. 
There  can,  therefore,  be  no  errour  in  the  Roman  Church, 
and  it  is  only  through  pride  that  the  Eastern  Church 
makes  those  accusations.  He  attacks  that  Church  on 
account  of  the  heresies  that  have  sprung  up  in  her 
bosom ;  but  he  does  not  observe  that  no  church  can 
be  made  responsible  for  heresies  she  has  condemned ; 
whilst  the  Roman  Church  was  herself  accused  of  having 
taught  errour  in  lieu  of  sound  doctrine.  He  ventures 
to  recall  the  opposition  of  the  ancient  Bishops  of  Rome 
to  the  title  of  oecumenical,  but  does  not  remark  that  the 
Popes  had  usurped  the  thing  as  well  as  the  title,  although 
not  officially  introduced  in  all  their  acts;  he  falsely  main- 
tains that  the  first  Council  of  Nicea  declared  that 
no  one  could  judge  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  and  that  he 
was  the  chief  of  all  the  churches.  He  cites  an  apocry- 
phal grant  of  Constantino  to  prove  the  sovereign  power 
of  the  Pope  in  a  temporal  as  well  as  a  spiritual  point  of 
view.  He  thinks  also  that  he  has  subdued  the  impudent 
vanity  of  those  who  contested  the  rights  of  the  Papacy. 
He  resorts  to  those  texts  of  Scripture  which  at  all  times 
have  constituted  the  meagre  arsenal  of  the  Papacy.  He 
maintains  that  Constantinople  owes  to  the  Holy  See  the 

•  Leo  IX.  Ep.  In  Labbe'i  CoUecUon  of  Councils,  toL  Ix. 


THE  PAPACY,  349 

second  rank  that  she  occupies  among  the  Patriarchal 
Churches.  As  for  the  Roman  Church,  she  has  an  excep- 
tional rank,  and  to  attack  her  rights  is  to  attack  the 
Church  Universal,  of  which  she  is  the  divine  centre. 
Pride  and  jealousy  alone  could  suggest  such  sacrilegious 
intentions. 

Such  is  the  substance  of  the  first  letter  of  Leo  IX  to 
the  Patriarch  Michael  Cerularius. 

Politics  envenomed  these  first  discussions.  The  Nor- 
mans were  attacking  the  empire.  The  Emperor  Con- 
stantine  Monomachus,  too  weak  to  resist  all  his  enemies, 
resolved  to  ask  the  aid  of  the  Germans  and  Italians,  and 
to  this  end  applied  to  the  Pope,  who  had  great  influence 
over  those  people.  In  order  to  conciliate  the  Pope  he 
wrote  to  him  that  he  ardently  desired  to  reestablish 
friendly  relations,  so  long  interrupted,  between  the 
churches  of  Rome  and  Constantinople.  He  persuaded 
the  Patriarch  Michael  \o  write  in  the  same  strain  to  Leo 
IX.,  who  at  once  sent  thi-ee  legates  to  Constantinople 
with  a  letter  for  the  Emperor  and  another  for  the  Patri- 
arch, (1054.) 

He  ijegins  by  felicitating  the  Emperor  upon  the  pious 
desire  he  had  communicated  to  him,  but  very  soon 
comes  down  to  the  rights  of  the  Roman  see.  "  The 
Catholic  Church,"  he  says,  "  mother  and  immaculate 
virgin,  although  destinedjto  fill  the  whole  world  with 
her  members,  has  n€verthelessn&iit~ohe  head,  which  must 
be  venerated  by  ajl,  ^Whllfi^SiL-diallQiiours  that  head 
claims  in  vain  to  be  one  of  her  members."  That  head 
of  the  Chiirnh  la  Rnrpp,  who°°  p^™^>j^  the  great  Con- 
stantine  recognized  by  his  grant.  Now,  as  Bishop  of 
Rome,  he  is  the  Vicar  of  God  charged  with  the  care  of 
all  the  churches.  He  therefore  wishes  to  restore  its 
splendour  to  the  Roman  Episcopate,  which  for  a  long 
time  has  been  governed  by  mercenaries,  he  says,  rather 
than  pastors.      The  Emperor  of  Constantinople  can  aid 


350  THE   PAPACY. 

liim  in  this  work,  by  restoring  the  estates  which  the 
Roman  Church  possessed  in  the  East,  and  by  checking 
the  enterprises  of  tlie  Patriarch  Michael,  whom  he 
accuses  of  ambitious  projects  against  the  churches  of 
Alexandria  and  Antioch. 

In  his  letter  to  Michael  Cerularius,  Leo  IX.  first  ac- 
knowledges the  receipt  of  the  letters  written  to  him  by 
that  Patriarch  in  favour  of  a  pacification.  "  We  shall 
have  peace,"  he  tells  him,  "  if  you  will,  in  future,  abstain 
from  overstepping  the  boundaries  set  up  by  the  Fathers." 
This  is  just  what  the  Eastern  Church  said  to  the  Papacy. 
Leo  then  finds  fault  with  Michael  for  his  ambition,  his 
luxury,  and  his  wealth.  Did  such  blame  fall  with  a  good 
grace  from  the  mouth  of  a  Pope  ?  He  adds,  "  What  a 
detestable,  lamentable,  sacrilegious  usurpation  is  yours, 
when  in  speech  and  in  writing  you  call  yoxxrseM  universal 
Patriarch  ! "  Then  he  mentions  the  opposition  of  St. 
Gregory  to  this  title  ;  and  this  brings  him  to  the  pre- 
tended rights  of  the  Church  of  Rome.  "  The  Roman 
Church,"  he  says,  "  is  not,  as  you  allege,  a  local 
church  ;  is  she  not  the  head  and  mother  ?  How  could 
she  be  this  if  she  had  neither  members  nor  children  ? 
We  proclaim  this  openly  because  we  believe  it  firmly  ; 
the  Roman  Church  is  so  little  a  local  church,  that  in 
all  the  world,  no  nation  which  presumes  to  disagree 
with  her  can  any  longer  be  regarded  as  belonging  to  the 
Church.  It  is  thenceforth  only  a  conventicle  of  heretics 
— a  synagogue  of  Satan  !  Therefore  let  him  who  would 
glory  in  the  name  of  a  Christian  cease  to  curse  and 
attack  the  Roman  Church  ;  for  it  is  vain  in  him  to  pre- 
tend to  honour  the  Father  of  the  family  if  he  dishonours 
his  spouse !  " 

Is  it  surprising  that  the  Eastern  Church  energetically 
protested  against  this  sacrilegious  doctrine  ? 

Cardinal  Humbert  was  chief  of  the  legates  of  Leo 
IX.,  who  were  bearers  of  these  letters.      The  Emperor 


THE   PAPACY.  351 

received  them  with  distinction,  and  Humbert  opened 
the  discussion  at  once,  entering  upon  the  defence  of  the 
Latin  Church,  making  sundry  accusations  against  the 
Greek  Church,  and  showing  that  the  Greek  Church  had 
her  own  peculiar  discipline  and  her  own  peculiar  abuses 
as  welb  as  the  Latin  Church.  His  writings  were  trans- 
lated into  Greek  by  the  Emperor's  order. 

The  Patriarch  Michael  refused  to  communicate  with 
the  legates.  Without  doubt  he  knew  that  it  was  a  fore- 
gone conclusion  with  the  Emperor  to  sacrifice  the  Greek 
Church  to  the  Papacy  in  order  to  obtain  some  aid  for  his 
throne.  The  letter  he  had  received  from  the  Pope  had 
enlightened  him  sufficiently  as  to  what  Rome  meant  by 
unio7i.  The  legates  proceeded  to  the  Church  of  Saint 
Sophia  at  the  hour  when  the  clergy  were  preparing  for 
the  mass.  They  loudly  complained  of  the  obstinacy  of 
the  Patriarch,  and  placed  upon  the  altar  a  sentence  of 
excommunication  against  him.  They  w^ent  out  of  the 
church,  shaking  the  dust  from  their  feet  and  pronouncing 
anathemas  against  all  those  who  should  not  communicate 
with  the  Latins.  All  this  was  done  with  the  Emperor's 
consent;  which  explains  why  the  Patriarch  would  have 
no  intercourse  Avith  the  legates.  The  people,  convinced 
of  the  Emperor's  connivance,  revolted.  In  the  moment 
of  danger  Constantine  made  some  concessions.  The 
legates  protested  that  their  sentence  of  excommunication 
had  not  been  read  as  it  was  written  ;  tliat  the  Patriarch 
had  the  most  cruel  and  perfidious  designs  against  them. 
However  that  may  be,  and  had  Michael  even  been  guilty 
of  such  wicked  designs,  this  manner  of  acting  was  none  the 
more  dignified  or  canonical.  Michael  has  been  further- 
accused  of  making  groundless  complaints  against  the 
Latin  Church.  Several  of  these  were,  in  fact,  exag- 
gerated ;  but  it  has  not  been  sufficiently  observed  that 
the  Patriarch,  in  his  letter,  only  echoed  the  sentiments  of 
all  the  Eastern  churches.     Ever  since  the  Papacy  had  at- 


352  THE  PAPACY. 

tempted  to  impose  its  autocracy  upon  them,  there  had 
been  a  strong  reaction  in  all  these  churches.  On  the 
spur  of  this  sentiment  every  thing  had  been  sought  out 
that  could  be  laid  at  the  door  of  the  Roman  Church, 
which  by  her  bishops  held  herself  out  as  the  infallible 
guardian  of  sound  doctrine.  Michael  Cerularius  was 
only  the  interpreter  of  these  complaints  ;  he  would  never 
have  had  enough  influence  to  impose  his  grievances,  true 
or  pretended,  upon  the  whole  Christian  East ;  so  that  those 
who  call  him  the  consummator  of  the  schism  commenced 
under  Photius,  have  but  superficially  understood  the 
facts.  What  made  the  strength  of  Photius  against  the 
Papacy  was,  that  all  the  churches  of  the  East  were  with 
him,  in  spite  of  political  intrigues,  imperial  influence, 
Papal  violence,  and  the  spite  of  relentless  enemies. 
Therein  lay  the  strength  of  Michael  Cerularius  also. 
This  Patriarch  possessed  neither  the  leaining,  the  genius, 
nor  the  virtues  of  Photius ;  but  he  spoke  in  the  name  of 
the  East,  and  the  East  recognized  its  own  sense  in  his 
protests  against  the  innovations  of  Rome.  The  Em- 
peror, jealous  of  the  influence  he  had  acquired,  banished 
him,  and  was  endeavouring  to  have  him  deposed  by  a 
council,  when  he  heard  of  his  death,  (1058.) 

After  the  death  of  the  Patriarch  Michael  intercourse 
between  Rome  and  Constantinople  became  even  less 
frequent  than  before.  We  hear  of  one  legate  sent  in 
1071,  by  Pope  Alexander  II.,  but  rather  for  a  political 
object  than  from  motives  of  religion.  He  thought  that 
the  Eastern  Emperors  might  be  of  great  help  in  the 
Crusades. 

Gregory  VII.,  who  soon  after  ascended  the  Papal 
chair,  (in  1073,)  raised  the  Papacy  to  its  greatest  height, 
by  skilfully  taking  advantage  of  the  divisions  caused 
by  the  feudal  system,  to  extend  the  influence  of  the 
Church,  which  he  summed  up  in  the  Bishop  of  Rome. 
But    he  did    not  use  his    influence   to  reconcile  the 


THE   PAPACY.  353 

West  with  the  East ;  and  besides,  the  antagonism  was 
too  great  between  the  two  churches,  to  allow  the 
diplomatic  negotiations  of  the  Popes  with  the  Emperors 
of  the  East  to  have  any  useful  result.  The  Papacy- 
had  spread  throughout  the  West  the  idea  that  the 
Greeks  were  schismatics  and  danjjerous  enemies  to 
the  Church,  while  the  Easterns  regarded  the  people 
of  the  West  in  the  light  of  barbarians  who  were 
Christians  only  in  name  and  had  tampered  with  the 
faith  and  the  holiest  institutions  of  the  Church.  Hence 
the  distrust  of  the  Crusaders  on  the  part  of  the  Greeks, 
and  the  violence  of  the  Crusaders  against  them. 
We  are  not  concerned  with  those  expeditions  in  this 
work.  We  will  only  notice  this  acknowledged  fact, 
that  the  Crusades  only  strengthened  the  antipathy 
which  had  long  existed  between  East  and  West,  and 
that  if  any  attempt  were  made  to  reconcile  them,  it 
was  ever  the  emperors,  acting  from  motives  of  policy 
and  interest,  that  took  the  lead.  These  emperors  never 
ceased  to  think  of  their  Western  possessions.  They 
watched  the  contests  between  several  of  the  Popes 
and  the  emperors  of  the  West.  These  contests,  as 
animated  as  they  were  protracted,  were  caused  by 
the  Papacy,  which,  in  virtue  of  its  spiritual  sover- 
eignty, pretended  to  overrule  the  temporal  powers. 
Alexis  Comnenus  endeavoured  to  turn  them  to  account. 
He  sent  (a.d.  1112)  an  embassy  to  Rome  announcing 
that  he  was  inclined  to  proceed  thither  to  receive 
the  imperial  crown  from  the  hands  of  the  Pope.  This 
step  did  not  lead  to  any  thing  more,  but  it  proves  that 
the  emperors  of  that  period  had  a  decided  tendency 
to  conciliate  Rome  from  motives  of  mere  policy.  Man- 
uel Comnenus  (a.d.  1155)  sought  the  alliance  of  the 
Pope  and  of  Frederic,  Emperor  of  the  West,  against  the 
Normans,  who  had  wrested  Sicily  from  the  empire  of 
Constantinople.     Upon  that  occasion  Pope  Adrian  W. 


354  THE    PAPACT. 

sent  legates  to  Manuel,  with  a  letter  for  Basil,  Arch- 
bishop of  Thessalonica,  in  which  he  exhorted  that 
bishop  to  procure  the  retinion  of  the  churches.  * 
Basil  answered  that  there  was  no  division  between 
the  Greeks  and  Latins,  since  they  held  the  same  faith 
and  offered  the  same  sacrifice.  "As  for  the  causes  of 
scandal,  weak  in  themselves,  that  have  separated  us 
from  each  other,"  he  adds,  "your  Holiness  can  cause 
them  to  cease,  by  your  own  extended  authority  and 
the  help  of  the  Emperor  of  the  West." 

This  reply  was  as  skilful  as  it  was  wise.  The 
Papacy  had  innovated ;  it  enjoyed  a  very  widespread 
authority  in  the  West.  What  was  there  to  prevent 
its  use  of  that  authority  to  reject  its  own  innovations, 
or  those  it  had  tolerated  ?  It  was  in  the  power  of  the 
Church  of  Rome  to  bring  about  a  perfect  union  be- 
tween the  two  churches.  But  the  Papacy  had  no 
Buch  idea  of  union ;  no  union  could  exist  in  its  view 
except  upon  the  submission  of  the  Eastern  Church  to 
its  authority.  But  the  Eastern  Church,  while  main- 
taining the  ancient  doctrine,  was  in  an  attitude  of 
continual  protest  against  this  usurped  authority,  and 
was  not  disposed  to  submit  to  this  unlawful  yoke. 

The  emperors  continued  their  political  intrigues 
while  the  Church  Avas  in  this  situation.  They  kept 
on  good  terms  with  the  Emperor  of  the  West  so 
long  as  he  was  friendly  with  the  Papacy ;  but  as 
soon  as  neyr  struggles  arose,  they  profited  by  them 
to  renew  their  applications  to  the  Popes  respecting  the 
imperial  crown.  Alexander  III.  being  at  war  with 
Frederic,  Manuel  Comnenus  sent  him  (a.d.  1166) 
an  embassy,  to  make  known  to  the  Pope  his  good  in- 
tentions of  reuniting  the  Greek  and  Latin  churches,  so 
that  Latins  and  Greeks  should  thenceforth  make  but  one 

*  Adrian  iv.  Ep.  7. 


THE  PAPACY.  355 

people  under  one  chief.  He  asked,  therefore,  the  crown 
of  the  whole  Roman  empire,  promising  Italy  and  other 
material  advantages  to  the  Roman  Church.  The  Pope 
sent  legates  to  Constantinople.  Two  years  later  (a.d. 
1169)  Manuel  sent  a  new  embassy  to  Alexander,  offer- 
ing to  reunite  the  Greek  and  Latin  churches,  if  he 
would  grant  him  the  crown  he  solicited.  The  Pope 
refused,  under  pretext  of  the  troubles  that  would  follow 
that  grant.  Notwithstanding  this  refusal  the  most 
friendly  relations  existed  between  the  Pope  and  Manuel, 
at  whose  request  a  Cardinal  sub-deacon,  named  John, 
went  to  Constantinople  to  work  for  the  union  of  the 
churches.  But  Manuel's  tendencies  were  not  approved 
of  by  the  Greeks,  who  detested  the  Latins,  not  only  for 
religious  reasons,  but  also  from  resentment  for  the  vio- 
lence they  had  suffered  from  the  Crusaders.  And  ac- 
cordingly, after  Manuel's  death,  the  Latins  were  mas- 
sacred without  mercy  at  Constantinople,  (a.d.  1182.) 
Cardinal  John  was  one  of  the  victims.  Andronicus,  who 
had  instigated  the  massacre,  was  elected  Emperor.  He 
died  shortly  after,  and  was  succeeded  by  Isaac  Angel  us, 
who  was  dethroned  by  his  brother,  Alexis  Angelus. 
Innocent  III.  was  Bishop  of  Rome,  (a.d.  1198.)  Since 
Gregory  VII.  no  other  Pope  had  had  so  much  influence 
in  the  West.  Alexis  Angelus  hastened  to  follow  the 
policy  of  the  Comneni :  he  sent  ambassadors,  with  a 
letter  to  the  Pope  from  him,  and  another  from  the 
Patriarch  John  Camaterus,  in  order  to  prove  to  him 
that  they  desired  to  procure  a  union  between  the 
churches.  Innocent  dispatched  legates  to  Constanti- 
nople, bearing  letters  in  which  he  exalted  the  Roman 
Church  beyond  all  measure.  The  Patriarch  gave  the 
legates  his  answer,  which  began  thus : 

"  To  Innocent,  very  holy  Roman  Pope,  and  our  be- 
loved brother  in  the  Lord  Christ,  John,  by  the  Divine 
Mercy,  Archbishop  of  Constantinople,  Patriarch  of  New- 


356  THE  PAPACY. 

Rome,  love  and  peace  from  our  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus 
Christ."     Here  is  the  substance  of  his  letter : 

"  In  reading  the  letter  you  have  sent  to  our  Humility, 
we  have  approved  of  the  zeal  of  your  Holiness  for  our 
mutual  union  in  the  faith.  But  I  will  not  conceal  from 
you  what  has  greatly  embarrassed  me  in  your  letter.  It 
amazes  me,  in  fact,  that  you  call  the  Church  of  Rome 
one  and  universal^  since  it  is  well  established  that  the 
Church  is  divided  into  particular  churches,  governed  by 
pastors,  under  one  sole,  supreme  pastor,  Jesus  Christ. 
And  what  I  do  not  further  understand  is,  that  you  call 
the  Church  of  Rome  the  mother  of  the  other  churches. 
The  mother  of  the  churches  is  that  of  Jerusalem,  which 
surpasses  them  all  in  antiquity  and  dignity.  I  cannot, 
therefore,  plead  guilty  to  the  accusation,  which  your 
Holiness  makes  against  me,  that  I  divide  the  single  and 
seamless  coat  of  Christ.  When,  on  one  side,  we  behold 
our  own  Church  carefully  preserving  the  ancient  doctrine 
of  the  Procession  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and,  on  the  other, 
your  Church  fallen  into  errour  on  this  point,  we  may 
well  ask  you  which  of  them  has  rent  the  coat  of  Chi-ist  ? 

"  I  am  not  the  less  disposed,  for  all  that,  to  second  the 
kind  intentions  of  the  Emperor  for  good." 

The  Emperor  also  answered  the  Pope,  who  replied  in 
two  letters  from  which  we  will  give  some  extracts.  He 
writes  to  the  Patriarch :  *'  The  primacy  of  the  Roman 
see  has  been  established,  not  by  man,  but  by  God,  or 
rather,  by  the  Man-God  ;  this  can  be  proved  by  number- 
less evangelic  and  apostolic  evidences,  confirmed  by- 
canonical  constitutions  which  attest  that  the  most  holy 
Roman  Church  was  consecrated  in  Saint  Peter,  the 
prince  of  the  Apostles,  to  be  the  mistress  and  mother  of 
all  the  others."  Innocent  cites  many  texts  from  Scrip- 
ture, interpreting  them  in  his  own  way.*      He  wonders 

*  We  have  already  determined  their  true  sense  In  the  first  chapter  of  this  work. 


THE  PAPACY.  357 

that  the  Patriarch  is  ignorant  of  these  interpretations ; 
then  he  undertakes  to  answer  the  two  questions  which 
he  had  put  to  him  :  "  You  ask  me,"  he  says,  "  how  the 
Roman  Church  is  one  and  universal.  The  universal 
Church  is  that  which  is  composed  of  all  the  churches, 
according  to  the  force  of  the  Greek  word  Catholic.  In 
this  sense,  the  Roman  Church  is  not  universal,  it  is  only 
a  part  of  the  Universal  Church ;  but  the  first  and  the 
principal  part,  like  the  head  in  a  body.  The  Roman 
Church  is  such  because  the  fulness  of  power  resides  in 
her,  and  that  only  a  part  of  that  fulness  ovei-flows  to 
the  others.  That  one  Church  is  therefore  universal  in 
this  sense,  that  all  the  others  are  under  it.  According 
to  the  true  sense  of  the  word,  the  Roman  Church  only 
is  universal,  because  it  is  the  only  one  that  has  been 
raised  above  the  others 

"  You  ask  me  how  the  Roman  Church  is  the  mother 
of  the  churches  ?  She  is  so  not  according  to  time  but 
according  to  dignity.  Tlie  Church  of  Jerusalem  may 
be  regarded  as  the  mother  of  the  faith,  because  that 
faith  came  first  from  her  bosom ;  the  Church  of  Rome 
is  the  mother  of  the  faithful,  because  she  has  been 
placed  over  them  all  by  the  privilege  of  her  dignity." 
Innocent  then  congratulates  the  Patriarch  upon  his  de- 
sire for  unity,  and  adds  that  he  owes  respect  and  obedi- 
ence to  the  Roman  Church  and  to  its  bishop  as  to  his 
chief;  that  he  will  receive  him  upon  condition  that  he 
shall  be  subject  as  a  member  should  be  to  the  head.,  but 
that  if  he  refuse  respect  and  obedience^  he  will  proceed 
against  him  and  the  Greek  Church. 

Innocent  III.  liked  to  talk  like  a  master.  He  ex- 
presses himself  in  the  same  manner  in  his  reply  to  the 
Emperor.  He  declares  his  willingness  to  call  a  council, 
although  the  constitution  of  the  Church  is  not  synodal ; 
that  he  will  invite  the  Patriarch  to  it ;  that  if  he  will 
Chere  submit  to  the  Homan  Churchy  and  render  it  the 


358  THE   PAPACY. 

obedience  lohich  he  owes  to  it,  peace  shall  he  made  with 
him.  He  begs  the  Emperor  to  see  that  the  Patriarch 
appears  at  the  council  thus  disposed ;  and  concludes  this 
letter  also  with  threats. 

He  did  not  carry  them  into  execution,  however ;  for 
he  knew  that  to  secure  the  success  of  thg  Crusade  which 
was  then  organizing,  he  must  keep  on  good  terms  with 
the  Greek  Emperor.  He  therefore  wrote  to  the  Crusa- 
ders who  had  just  left  Venice,  and  were  on  their  way 
to  Constantinople,  "  Let  none  among  you  JBatter  him- 
self that  he  may  be  permitted  to  invade  or  pillage  the 
land  of  the  Greeks,  under  pretext  that  it  is  not  sufficiently/ 
submissive  to  the  Holy  See,  or  that  the  Emperor  is  an 
usurper,  having  wrested  the  empire  from  his  brother. 
What  crimes  he  or  his  subjects  may  have  committed,  it 
is  not  for  you  to  judge ;  and  you  have  not  taken  the 
Cross  to  avenge  that  injury." 

The  Crusaders  knew  perfectly  well  that  their  success 
would  insure  their  absolution.  They  had  made  a  treaty 
at  Venice,  with  the  young  Alexis,  son  of  Isaac  and 
nephew  of  the  Emperor.  This  prince  promised,  that  if 
the  Crusaders  should  give  him  back  the  throne  his  uncle 
had  usurped,  he  would  subject  the  Greek  Church  to  the 
Papal  sovereignty,  and  join  the  Crusaders  against  the 
Mussulmans. 

Upon  reaching  Constantinople,  the  Crusaders  showed 
the  young  Alexis  to  the  people,  but  soon  perceived  that 
they  would  excite  no  sympathy  in  this  manner.  They 
then  determined  to  force  him  upon  the  city,  which  they 
took  by  assault.  They  sent  news  of  this  to  the  Pope  by 
a  letter  in  which  they  sought  to  excuse  themselves  for 
having  attacked  the  Greeks.*  "  The  cruel  usurper  of 
the  empire  (Alexis  Angelus)  had  harangued  the  people 
and  had  persuaded  them  that  the  Latins  were  coming  to 

*  See  ViUebardouln  ;  see  It.  Oodef.  ad  ann.  1203 ;  Raynold.  Annal. ;  Innocent  III. 
Eptst. 


THE   PAPACY.  359 

ruin  their  ancient  liberty,  and  subjugate  the  empire  to 
their  laws  and  to  the  authority  of  the  Pope.  This  so 
excited  them  against  us  and  against  the  yoiin"-  Prince, 
that  they  would  not  listen  to  us."  They  pretended  to 
have  been  first  attacked  by  the  Greeks  ;  they  relat<;d 
what  the  old  Emperor  Isaac,  together  with  his  son 
Alexis,  was  doing  for  them,  and  took  good  care  to  add, 
"  He  further  promises  to  render  you  that  obedience 
which  the  Catholic  emperors,  his  predecessors  have 
rendered  to  the  Popes,  and  to  do  all  in  his  power  to 
lead  back  the  Greek  Church  to  that  obedience.''^ 

One  of  the  chiefs  of  the  Crusaders,  the  Count  of  St. 
Paul,  wrote,  on  his  part,  to  the  Duke  of  Louvain  :  "  We 
have  so  much  advanced  the  cause  of  the  Saviour  that 
the  Eastern  Church,  of  which  Constantinople  was  for- 
merly the  metropolis,  being  reunited  to  the  Pope  its  head, 
with  the  Emperor  and  all  his  empire,  as  it  was  formerly^ 
recognizes  herself  as  the  daughter  of  the  Roman  Church, 
and  will  humbly  obey  her  for  the  future.  The  Patriarch 
himself  is  to  go  to  Rome  to  receive  his  pallium,  and  has 
promised  the  Emperor  on  his  oath  to  do  so.  The  youn<* 
Alexis  wrote  in  the  same  strain  to  the  Pope.  "  We 
own,"  he  said,  "  that  the  chief  cause  which  has  brought 
the  pilgrims  to  succor  us  is,  that  we  have  voluntarily 
promised,  and  upon  oath,  that  we  would  humbly  recog- 
nize the  Roman  Pontiff  as  the  Ecclesiastical  head  of  aU 
Christendom,  and  as  the  successor  of  St.  Peter,  and  that 
we  would  use  all  our  power  to  lead  the  Eastern  Church  to 
that  recognition,  understanding  well,  that  such  reflnion 
will  be  very  useful  to  the  empire  and  most  glorious  for 
us.  We  repeat  to  you  the  same  promises  by  these  pre- 
sents, and  we  ask  your  advice  how  to  woo  back  the 
Eastern  Church." 

It  was,  therefore,  well  understood  that  union  meant 
nothing  but  submission  to  the  Roman  see.  The  Crusad- 
ers and  their  proteges  knew  that  only  such  promises 


360  THE   PAPACY, 

could  lead  Innocent  III.  to  approve  what  he  had  at  first 
censured.  The  experiment  succeeded.  Innocent  replies 
to  Alexis  that  he  approves  of  his  views  as  to  the  reunion 
of  the  Eastern  Church.  If  he  will  remain  faithful  to  his 
engagements,  he  promises  him  all  manner  of  prosperity ; 
if  he  should  fail,  he  predicts  that  he  will  fall  before  his 
enemies. 

Innocent  then  replied  to  the  Crusaders.  He  feared 
that  they  had  only  exacted  from  Alexis  the  promise  to 
subject  the  Eastern  to  the  Roman  Church,  in  order  to 
excuse  their  own  fault.  "  We  will  judge  by  these  i*e- 
sults,"  he  said,  "  whether  you  have  acted  sincerely  :  if 
the  Emperor  sends  us  letters-patent  that  we  may  pre- 
serve as  authentic  proof  of  his  oath  ;  if  the  Patriarch 
sends  us  a  solemn  deputation  to  recognize  the  primacy 
of  the  Roman  Church,  and  to  promise  obedience  to  tis  ^ 
and  if  he  asks  of  us  the  pallium,  without  which  he 
cannot  legitimately  exercise  the  Patriarchal  functions** 

Could  the  Eastern  Church  recognize  such  a  doctrine 
as  being  that  of  the  first  eight  centuries  ? 

The  Crusaders  soon  quarreled  with  Alexis,  who,  when 
he  was  Emperor,  at  once  forgot  his  promises.  But 
this  young  prince  had  alienated  the  Greeks  by  ascend- 
ing the  throne  by  means  of  the  Latins.  He  was  de- 
throned, and  Constantinople  fell  into  the  power  of  an 
adventurer.  The  Crusaders  decided  that  this  man  had 
no  right  to  the  crown,  and  that  the  Greeks  were  to  be 
treated  without  much  consideration,  since  they  had  icith- 
drawn  from,  their  obedience  to  the  Pope.  They,  there- 
fore, took  possession  of  the  city,  and  placed  one  of  their 
number,  Baldwin,  Count  of  Flanders,  on  the  throne. 
Constantinople  was  sacked ;  all  its  churches  polluted, 
pillaged,  and  laid  waste. 

The  Latin  Empire  of  Constantinople  began  in  1204 
and  ended  in  1261.  During  that  period  of  about  half  a 
century,  the  hatred  between  the  Greeks  and  Latins  as- 


THE  PAPACY.  861 

Bumed  fearful  proportions.  The  Marquis  of  Monferrat^ 
chief  of  the  Crusaders,  wrote  to  the  Pope,  that,  if  Con- 
stantinople had  been  taken,  it  was  principally  to  do  a 
service  to  the  holy  see.,  and  bring  the  Greeks  back  to  the 
obedience  which  was  due  to  it.  "  After  our  miraculous 
conquest,"  he  adds,  "  we  have  done  nothing  except  for 
the  sake  of  retiniting  the  Eastern  Church  to  the  holy  see  ; 
and  we  await  your  counsel  for  that  result." 

In  his  reply.  Innocent  censures  the  excesses  and  sacri- 
leges of  which  the  Crusaders  had  been  guilty.  "  The 
Greeks,"  he  adds,  "  notwithstanding  the  bad  treatment 
they  suflfer  from  those  who  wish  to  force  them  to  return 
to  the  obedience  of  the  Roman  Church,  cannot  make  up 
their  minds  to  do  so,  because  they  only  see  crimes  and 
works  of  darkness  in  the  Latins,  and  they  hate  them 
like  dogs.  .  .  .  But  the  judgments  of  God,"  continues 
the  Pope,  "  are  impenetrable,  and  hence  we  would  not 
judge  lightly  in  this  affair.  It  may  be  that  the  Greeks 
have  been  justly  punished  for  their  sins,  although  you 
acted  unjustly  in  gratifying  your  own  hatred  against 
them ;  it  is  possible  that  God  maij  justly  reward  you  for 
having  been  the  instruments  of  His  own  vengeance." 
It  is  evident  that  Innocent  HI.  was  calm  enough  to 
make  subtle  distinctions  in  the  presence  of  a  city  of 
bloodshed  and  ruins.  The  rest  of  his  letter  is  worthy 
of  the  foregoing:  "Let  us  leave,"  he  says,  "these  doubt- 
ful questions.  This  is  certain,  that  you  may  keep  and 
defend  the  land  which  is  conquered  for  you  by  the  de- 
cision of  God  ;  upon  this  condition,  however,  that  you 
will  restore  the  possessions  of  the  churches,  and  that 
you  always  remain  faithful  to  the  holy  see  and  to  ics." 

The  Papal  sovereignty  was  the  great  and  single  aim. 
Crimes  became  virtues,  provided  the  authority  of  the 
holy  see  was  propagated  and  sustained. 

Not  content  with  approving  the  taking  of  Constan- 
tinople, Innocent  undertook  to  establish  firmly  the  new 


862  TEE  PAPACY. 

empire.  He  accordingly  wrote  to  the  bishops  of  France 
a  circular,  of  which  this  is  the  substance  :  "  God,  wish- 
ing to  hallow  His  Church  by  the  reunion  of  the  schis- 
matics, has  transferred  the  empire  of  the  proud,  disobe- 
dienty  and  superstitious  Greeks  to  the  humble,  pious^ 
catholic,  and  submissive  Latins.  The  new  Emperor, 
Baldwin,  invites  all  manner  of  people,  clerical  and  lay, 
noble  and  yillain,  of  all  sexes  land  conditions,  to  come  to 
his  empire  to  receive  wealth  according  to  their  merit 
and  quality.  The  Pope,  therefore,  commands  the  bish- 
ops to  persuade  every  one  to  come ;  and  he  promises  the 
Indulgence  of  the  Crusade  to  those  who  will  go  to  up- 
hold the  new  empire." 

Baldwin  having  begged  the  Pope  to  send  him  some 
Latin  ecclesiastics  to  strengthen  the  Papal  Church  in 
the  East,  Innocent  wrote  a  new  circular  to  the  bishops 
of  France.  "  Send,"  says  he,  "  to  that  country  all 
the  books  you  can  spare,  at  least  to  have  them  copied, 
that  the  Church  of  the  East  may  agree  with  that  of  the 
West  in  the  praises  of  God !"  Thus  the  venerable  litur- 
gies of  the  East  found  no  grace  in  the  eyes  of  the  Papa- 
cy. It  was  a  new  church  it  wished  for  in  the  new 
Latin-Greek  Empire. 

Baldwin  established  a  Latin  clergy  at  Constantinople, 
and  named  the  canons,  whom  he  installed  at  Saint  So- 
phia. These  elected  the  Venetian,  Thomas  Morosini,  for 
their  Patriarch.  Innocent  found  no  irregularity  except 
in  his  elective  character ;  therefore,  instead  of  confirm- 
ing the  election,  he  directly  appointed  Thomas  to  the 
Patriarchate.  His  letter  deserves  to  be  quoted  :  "  As 
for  the  personal  character  of  the  Patriarch  elect,  he  is 
sufficiently  known  to  us  and  to  our  Brethren  the  Car- 
dinals, because  of  the  long  sojourn  he  has  made  with  us. 
We  know  he  is  of  a  noble  race,  and  of  proper  life,  pru- 
dent, circumspect,  and  sufficiently  learned.  But  having 
examined  the  election,  we  have  not  found  it  canonical. 


THE   PAPACY.  Ses 

because,  laymen  having  no  right  to  dispose  of  ecclesias. 
tical  affairs,  the  Patriarch  of  Constantinople  should  not 
have  been  elected  by  the  authority  of  any  secular  prince 
Besides,  the  Venetian  clergymen,  who  call  themselves 
canons  of  Saint  Sophia,  could  not  have  the  right  of 
election,  not  having  been  established  in  their  Church 
either  by  ourselves  or  our  legates  or  deputies.  For  this 
reason  we  have  cancelled  the  election  in  full  Consis- 
tory." 

Then  the  Pope  declares  that,  wishing  to  provide  for 
that  Church,  the  care  of  which  is  specially  his,  he  ap- 
points the  same  Thomas  Patriarch  in  virtue  of  the  ful- 
ness of  his  power. 

Nothing  can  be  legitimate  in  the  Church,  except  by 
this  full  power  ;  such  was  the  claim  of  the  Papacy. 

Innocent  defended  the  ecclesiastical  possessions,  of 
which  a  part  had  been  appropriated  by  the  Crusaders. 
"  It  is  not  expedient,"  he  said,  "  for  the  holy  see  to  au- 
thorize this  act.  Moreover,  since  their  treaty  was  made 
with  the  Venetians— ;/br  the  honoun  of  the  Roman 
Churchy  as  they  say  in  nearly  every  article — we  cannot 
confirm  an  act  which  detracts  from  that  honour." 

Innocent  conferred  upon  Thomas  Morosini,  who  was 
only  a  sub-deacon,  the  diaconate,  the  priesthood,  and  the 
episcopacy ;  then  he  published  a  bull,  in  which  he  thus 
expresses  himself:  "The  prerogative  of  grace  which 
the  holy  see  has  given  to  the  Byzantine  Church  proves 
clearly  the  fulness  of  poicer  that  this  see  has  received 
from  God^  since  the  holy  see  has  put  that  Church  in 
the  rank  of  Patriarchal  Churches.  It  has  drawn  it,  as 
it  were,  from  the  dust ;  it  has  raised  it  to  the  point  of 
preferring  it  to  those  of  Alexandria,  Antioch,  and  Jeru- 
salem ;  it  has  placed  it  next  to  the  Roman  Church,  above 
all  others." 

Innocent  recognized  the  fact  that  the  Church  of  Con- 
stantinople had  the  second  rank  in  the  Church.     But  he 


oQ^  THE  PAPACY. 

ascribed  this  to  the  Roman  see,  although  that  Bee  had 
protested  against  the  decrees  of  the  oecumenical  councils 
of  Constantinople  and  Chalcedon,  which  had  given  that 
Church  the  second  rank  in  spite  of  Rome.  It  was  thus 
that  the  Papacy  in  the  middle  ages  distorted  history  to 
find  proofs  in  support  of  its  pretensions. 

The  Greek  Patriarch  of  Constantinople,  John  Cama- 
terus,  resigned  and  retired  to  Thrace.  He  was  suc- 
ceeded by  Michael  Autorian,  who  crowned  Theodore 
Lascaris  Emperor  of  the  Greeks.  They  both  fixed 
their  residence  at  Nicea  in  Bithynia. 

The  French  and  Venetians  quarreled  about  the  new 
Latin  Patriarch  and  the  division  of  the  ecclesiastical 
property.  Thomas  applied  to  the  Pope,  who  replied  in 
a  long  letter,  from  which  we  will  quote  an  extract : 
"  Of  the  four  beasts  which  are  about  the  throne  Ezekiel 
put  the  eagle  above  the  others,  because^  of  the  four  Pa- 
triarchal Churches,  represented  by  the  four  beasts, 
which  surround  the  holy  see  as  its  servants^  the  Church 
of  Constantinople  has  the  preeminence." 

Thus  Rome  was  the  throne.  The  imperial  eagle,  the 
type  of  Constantinople,  was  to  be  the  first  of  the  sym- 
bolic beasts  that  adored  it.  Such  was  Innocent's  modest 
notion  of  his  authority.  He  thus  gives  a  divine  origin 
to  the  preeminence  of  Constantinople,  because  it  had 
come  from  the  holy  see — God's  organ.  After  this  pre- 
amble the  Pope  gives  Thomas  some  instructions,  among 
which  we  will  notice  the  following:  "You  ask  me  how 
you  should  arrange  the  bishoprics  in  those  countries 
where  there  are  only  Greeks,  and  in  those  where  they 
are  mixed  with  Latins.  In  the  first  you  must  consecrate 
Greek  bishops,  if  you  find  any,  who  will  be  faithful  to 
you,  and  are  willing  to  receive  consecration  from  you. 
In  mixed  bishoprics  you  will  ordain  Latins,  and  give 
them  preference  over  the  Greeks.  ...  If  you  can- 
not bring  the  Greeks  to  the  Latin  ritual,  you  must  suf- 


THE  PAPACY.  365 

fer  them  to  keep  their  own  until  the  holy  see  otherwise 
orders."  Such  was  the  policy  constantly  followed  by 
the  Papacy  in  respect  to  the  united  Greeks  ;  to  tolerate 
them  until  they  could  be  made  to  submit. 

From  that  epoch  there  were  in  the  East,  by  Papal 
authority,  two  Catholic  churches  opposed  to  each  other. 
Schism  was  thenceforth  an  accomplished  fact,  (1206.) 
As  the  Bishop  of  Thessalonica  justly  wrote  to  Pope 
Adrian  IV.,  no  schism  really  existed  before  that  period. 
There  had  merely  been  a  j^rotest  of  the  Eastern  Church 
against  the  Roman  innovations.  This  protest  was  an- 
terior to  Michael  Cerularius  and  even  to  Photius.  It 
took  a  more  decided  character  under  those  Patriarchs, 
because  Rome  innovated  more  and  more,  and  wished  to 
impose  her  autocracy  upon  the  whole  Church  ;  but  in 
reality  the  schism  had  not  taken  shape.  As  Fleury 
judiciously  remai'ks,  respecting  the  intercourse  between 
Manuel  Comnenus  and  Alexander  III.,  "  It  cannot  be 
said  that  in  his  day  the  schism  of  the  Greeks  had  yet 
taken  shape."*  This  cursory  remark  of  the  learned  his- 
torian, who  cannot  be  suspected  of  partiality  for  the 
Greek  Church,  has  an  importance  which  every  one  will 
understand.  It  necessarily  follows  from  it  that  neither 
Photius  nor  Michael  Cerularius  created  the  schism. 
Who  then  was  its  author  ?  It  would  be  impossible  to 
point  one  out  among  the  Greeks.  To  our  minds  it  is 
the  Papacy,  which,  after  having  called  forth  the  protests 
of  the  Eastern  Church,  and  strengthened  them  by  its 
own  autocratic  pretensions,  was  really  the  founder  of 
the  schism.  The  true  author  of  it  is  Pope  Innocent  IIL 
It  had  been  commenced  by  the  Latin  Church  of  Jeru- 
salem ;  it  was  consummated  by  that  of  Constantinople. 

This  is  the  testimony  of  authentic  and  impartial  his- 
tory. The  Papacy,  after  having  established  the  schism, 
strengthened  it  by  establishing  Latin  bishoprics  in  cities 

♦  Fleury  Hist.  Eccl.  Uv.  IxxUL  $  82. 


366  THE  PAPACY. 

•where  Greek  bishoprics  had  existed  since  the  Apostolic 
times.  When  the  Latin  bishops  could  not  reside  there, 
Rome  gave  them  titles  in  partibus  infidelium,  as  if  the 
Apostolic  Church  of  the  East  had  none  but  infidels 
among  its  members. 

Innocent  III.  died  in  1216.  His  successors  continued 
his  work.  But  the  Greek  Emperors  of  Nicea,  on  the 
verge  of  being  overcome  by  the  Latin  Emperors  of  Con- 
stantinople, bethought  themselves  to  resume  the  policy 
of  their  predecessors  toward  the  Papacy.  At  the  en- 
treaty of  the  Emperor  John  Vataces,  the  Patriarch 
Gerraanus  wrote  to  Pope  Gregory  IX.  (1232.)  His 
letter  was  filled  with  the  best  sentiments.*  He  first 
calls  upon  Jesus  Christ,  the  corner-stone  Avhich  joins 
all  nations  in  one  and  the  same  Church ;  he  ac- 
knowledges the  primacy  of  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  and 
declares  that  he  has  no  desire  to  contest  it ;  and  he 
adds  :  "  Let  us  seek,  with  all  possible  care,  who  have  been 
the  authors  of  the  division.  If  we  ourselves,  then  point 
out  to  us  the  wrong  we  have  committed  and  apply  the 
remedy ;  if  the  Latins,  then  we  cannot  believe  that  it  is 
your  determination  to  remain  outside  of  the  Lord's  her- 
itage, through  ignorance  or  criminal  obstinacy.  All  ac- 
knowledge that  the  division  has  sprung  from  different 
beliefs,  from  abolishing  canons  and  changing  the  ritual 
that  has  come  to  us  by  tradition  from  our  fathers. 
Now  all  are  witness  that  we  ask  supplicatingly  to  be 
reunited  in  the  truth,  after  a  profound  examination  to  be 
made  thereof,  so  that  we  may  no  longer  hear  from  either 
party  the  imputation  of  schism."  After  having  drawn 
the  picture  of  the  woes  which  that  imputation  of  schism 
had  drawn  upon  them  from  the  Crusaders,  Germanus  ex- 
claims, "  Is  it  this  that  St.  Peter  teaches  when  he  re- 
commends the  pastors  to  govern  their  flocks  without 

*  See  this  letter  in  Labbe's  CoIiecUon  of  Councils,  toL  xi. ;  also  in  tlie  Historian 
Matthew  Paris. 


THE   PAPACY.  30 V 

violence  or  domination  ?  I  know  that  each  of  us  be- 
lieves himself  right,  and  thinks  that  he  is  not  mistaken. 
Well  then,  let  us  appeal  to  Holy  Scripture  and  the 
Fathers." 

Germanus  wrote  in  the  same  way  to  the  Cardinals  who 
constituted  the  Pope's  council.  "  Permit  us,"  he  writes 
to  them,"  "  to  speak  the  truth ;  division  has  come  from 
the  tyrannical  oppression  that  you  exercise,  and  from  the 
exactions  of  the  Roman  Church,  which  is  no  mother, 
but  a  step-mother,  and  tramples  upon  the  other  churches 
just  in  proportion  as  they  humiliate  themselves  before 
her.  We  are  scandalized  to  see  you  exclusively  at- 
tached to  the  things  of  this  world,  on  all  sides  heaping 
up  gold  and  silver,  and  making  kingdoms  pay  you  trib- 
ute." Germanus  then  demands  a  thorough  examination  of 
the  questions  that  divide  the  Church ;  and  to  show  the 
importance  of  such  an  examination,  he  calls  attention  to 
the  fact  that  a  large  number  of  nations  agree  with  him. 

Gregory  IX.*  did  not  follow  Germanus  upon  the 
ground  which  this  Patriarch  had  taken.  He  accuses 
the  Greek  Church  of  too  much  submission  to  the  tem- 
poral power,  whereby  it  had  lost  its  liberty;  but  he 
does  not  say  wherein  the  liberty  of  the  Church  lies. 
For  every  Christian  that  liberty  consists  in  the  right  to 
preserve  revealed  doctrine  and  Apostolic  laws  in  their 
integrity.  From  this  point  of  view  has  not  the  Eastern 
Church  been  always  more  free  than  the  Western? 
Whether  a  Church  sacrifice  the  truth  to  an  Emperor  or 
to  a  Pope-King,  it  is  equally  servile  in  either  case.  Is 
it  not  wonderful  to  hear  the  Papacy  talk  thus  of  liberty 
to  the  Eastern  Church  while  in  the  very  act  of  attempt- 
ing her  subjugation,  and  aft«r  it  has  enslaved  the  Church 
of  the  West  ?  Gregory  IX.,  instead  of  accepting  the 
discussion  proposed  by  Germanus,  promised  to  send  him 
two  Dominicans  and  two  Franciscans  to  explain  to  him 

*  Greg.  IX.  Ep.  in  Labbe's  Collection  of  Councils,  toI.  xi. 


368  THE  PAPACY. 

his  intentions  and  those  of  the  Cardinals.  These  monks 
actually  set  out  for  Nicea  in  the  following  year,  (a.d. 
1233,)  bearing  a  letter  to  the  Patriarch  Germanus,  in 
which  the  Pope  compared  the  Greek  schism  to  that  of 
Samaria.  It  will  be  granted  that  the  comparison  was 
not  very  exact. 

In  fact,  Rome  was  neither  Jerusalem,  nor  the  univer- 
sal temple,  nor  the  guardian  of  the  law.  These  titles  ra- 
ther belonged  to  the  Eastern  Church  than  to  the  Roman, 
which  had  altered  dogmas  and  Apostolio  laws,  while  the 
other  had  piously  preserved  them.  In  the  same  letter 
Gregory  IX.  claims,  as  head  of  the  Churchy  the  twofold 
power,  spiritual  and  temporal ;  he  even  maintains  that 
Jesus  Christ  gave  that  power  to  St.  Peter  when  he  said 
to  him,  "  Put  up  thy  sword  into  the  sheath."  *  This  in- 
terpretation of  the  text  is  worthy  of  the  opinion  it  was 
cited  to  sustain.  Gregory  IX.  concludes  by  attacking  the 
use  of  leavened  bread  for  the  Eucharist.  "  That  bread," 
he  said,  "  typifies  the  corruptible  body  of  Jesus  Christ, 
while  the  unleavened  bread  represents  his  risen  and  glori- 
ous body."  The  four  Western  monks  were  received  at 
Nicea  with  great  honours.  They  conferred  with  the 
Greek  clergy  concerning  the  procession  of  the  Holy 
Ghost ;  the  report  is  still  extant  that  was  made  in  the 
West.f  In  this  report  the  monks  claim  to  have  had  the 
advantage,  as  may  well  be  imagined ;  but  by  their  own 
showing,  they  confounded  substance  with  personality  in 
the  Trinity — the  essential  procession,  with  the  temporary 
sending  of  the  Holy  Spirit  upon  the  Church ;  they  mis- 
quoted Scripture  and  the  Fathers  ;  they  could  give  no 
reason  for  the  addition  made  to  the  creed ;  and  they 
likened  that  addition,  irregularly  made,  and  involving 
a  new  dogma,  to  the  development  that  the  oecumenical 
Council  of  Constantinople  had  given  to  the  creed  of  the 
first  oecutne?iical  Council  of  Nicea. 

*  Gospel  ace.  to  St.  John  18  :  11.  t  Ap.  Raynald.  ad  Ann.  1288. 


THE  PAPACY.  369 

As  for  the  Eucharist,  the  discussion  concerning  it 
was  quite  insignificant.  Before  they  retired,  the  monks 
declared  to  the  Emperor  that,  if  the  Greeks  wished  to 
unite  with  the  Roman  Church,  they  must  subscribe  to  her 
doctrine  and  submit  to  the  Pope's  authority.  It  appears, 
therefore,  that  they  had  not  come  to  inquire  what  was 
the  true  doctrine,  and  whether  or  not  the  Papal  authority 
was  legitimate ;  union  to  them,  as  to  the  Pope,  meant 
nothing  but  submission.  The  Patriarch  Germanus  did  not 
understand  it  so ;  therefore  he  called  a  council  to  exam- 
ine the  points  of  difference  existing  between  the  Greeks 
and  Latins.  *  That  assembly  was  held  at  Nymphaeum. 
According  to  the  account  of  the  Nuncios  themselves, 
their  only  triumph  was  in  asking  the  Greeks  why  they 
no  longer  submitted  to  the  Pope,  after  having  formerly 
recognized  his  authority  ?  If  we  may  believe  them,  the 
Greeks  wei*e  very  much  embarrassed  by  this  question, 
and  kept  silence.  Such  a  remark  is  sufficient  to  show 
with  how  little  honesty  their  account  was  composed. 
Certainly  the  most  ignorant  of  the  Greeks  knew  that 
the  Papal  authority  had  never  been  recognized  in  the 
East.  After  long  discussions  upon  the  procession  of  the 
Holy  Spirit,  and  upon  unleavened  bread,  the  Emperor 
summoned  the  Nuncios  and  said  to  them,  "  To  arrive 
at  peace,  each  side  must  make  concessions  ;  abandon 
your  addition  to  the  creed,  and  we  will  approve  of  your 
unleavened  bread."  The  Nuncios  refused.  "  How  then 
shall  we  conclude  peace  ?"  asked  the  Emperor.  "Thus," 
replied  the  Nuncios:  "You  shall  believe  and  teach 
that  the  Eucharist  can  be  consecrated  only  in  unleavened 
bread :  vou  shall  burn  all  the  books  in  which  a  different 
doctrine  is  taught ;  you  shall  believe  and  teach  that  the 
Holy  Ghost  proceeds  from  the  Son  as  well  as  from  the 
Father,  and  shall  burn  all  the  books  that  teach  the  con- 
trary.   The  Pope  and  the  Roman  Church  will  not  abate 

*  Raynald.  ad  Ann.  1233 ;  Wading.  Annal.  Min.  ad  Ann.  1238. 


370  THE  PAPACY. 

one  iota  of  their  belief;  the  only  concession  that  can 
be  made  to  you  is,  not  to  oblige  you  to  chaunt  the  creed 
with  the  Latin  addition.  Such  was  the  substance  of 
the  7-eply  of  the  Nuncios.  The  Emperor  was  much  an- 
noyed at  it,  and  at  the  last  session  of  the  council 
the  two  parties  separated,  mutually  anathematizing  each 
other.       No  other  result  could  have  been  anticipated. 

About  thirty  years  after  this  Council,  (a.d.  1269,) 
Michael  Palseologus  reentered  Constantinople,  and  de- 
stroyed the  Latin  empire,  which  had  only  lasted  fifty- 
seven  years.  The  Papacy  now  saw  vanish  its  most 
cherished  hopes.  Urban  IV.,  the  reigning  Pope,  wrote 
to  Louis  IX.,  King  of  France,  urging  him  to  take  up 
the  defence  of  the  Latin  Emperor,  "  expelled  by  the 
schismatic  Greeks,  to  the  shame  of  the  West."  He  en- 
deavoured to  arouse  the  whole  of  Europe,  and  caused  a 
Crusade  to  be  preached  against  Palaeologus.  The  Empe- 
ror sought  to  move  the  Pope  by  embassies  and  presents, 
and  promises  to  work  efficiently  for  the  union  of  the 
churches.  This  policy,  first  adopted  by  the  Comneni, 
and  now  resumed  by  Palaeologus,  resulted  in  two  solemn 
assemblies — the  second  Council  of  Lyons  and  that  of 
Florence,  in  which  it  was  sought  to  fix  upon  a  basis  of 
union.  All  endeavours  to  do  this  proved  futile,  because 
the  Papacy  had  no  notion  of  having  its  supreme  and 
imiversal  authority,  nor  its  doctrines,  called  in  question. 
Clement  IV.  formally  declared  this  in  a  proposal  for  union 
which  lie  sent  to  Michael  Palaeologus  by  four  Francis- 
cans.* According  to  the  same  Pope,  Michael  was  guilty 
of  the  division  existina:  between  the  churches,  because  if 
he  chose  to  use  his  power,  he  could  force  all  the  Greek 
clergy  to  subscribe  to  the  demands  of  the  Pope.  To 
use  that  power,  he  said,  in  forcing  the  Greek  clergy 
was  the  only  mode  of  securing  his  empire  against  the 

♦  Eaynald  Annal.  Eccl. ;  Labbe's  Collection  of  Councils,  vol.  Ix. ;  Wading.  Anna), 
Min. ;  Pactiymeros,  Hist.  Orient,  book  t. 


THE   PAPACY.  371 

enterprises  of  the  Latins.  Thus,  .iccording  to  Clement 
IV.,  interest,  brute  force,  and  threats  were  the  true 
means  of  obtaining  unity.  Michael  Palseologus  was  par- 
ticularly in  danger  of  an  invasion  on  the  part  of  Charles, 
King  of  Sicily.  Remembering  that  Clement  IV.  had 
written  to  him  that  the  only  mode  of  protecting  him- 
self against  the  Latins  was  to  unite  the  churches,  he 
wrote  to  Gregory  X.  to  express  to  him  his  own  good 
intentions  in  this  respect. 

It  is  not  our  purpose  to  give  a  detailed  account  of  the 
relations  between  Gregory  and  Michael.  We  need  only 
say  that  the  latter  acted  solely  from  political  motives ; 
that  he  abused  his  imperial  power  to  persuade  some  of 
the  bishops  to  favour  his  projects ;  that  he  persecuted 
those  who  resisted  him  ;  that  some  bishops,  who  were 
traitors  from  interested  motives,  made  all  the  conces- 
sions that  the  Pope  demanded ;  that  their  course  was 
disavowed  by  the  rest,  notwithstanding  the  dreadful 
persecutions  that  this  disavowal  drew  upon  them ;  in 
fine,  that  reunion,  instead  of  being  established  by 
those  intrigues  and  acts  of  violence,  only  became  more 
difficult  than  ever. 

Such  is,  in  substance,  the  history  of  what  took 
place  at  the  second  Council  of  Lyons  (1274)  in  regard 
to  the  reunion  of  the  churches,  and  of  what  took  place 
in  the  Greek  Church  after  the  Council.  It  is  all  political, 
and  has  no  religious  character,  Gregory  X.  declared 
peace  at  Lyons  upon  the  basis  laid  down  by  Clement 
IV.  But  this  union  was  only  made  with  Michael  Palso- 
logus  and  a  few  men  without  principles.  The  Church 
of  the  East  had  no  share  in  it.  Rome  herself  was  so 
persuaded  of  this,  that  Martin  IV.  excommunicated 
Michael  Palaologus  for  having  tricked  the  Pope  under 
pretext  of  retinion,  (1281.)  Andronicus,  who  succeeded 
Michael,  (1283,)  renounced  a  policy  in  which  there  was 
80  little  truth. 


372  THE   PAPACY. 

But  it  was  resumed  by  John  Palaeologus  for  the  Coun- 
cil of  Florence. 

In  the  interval  between  these  two  assemblies  of 
Lyons  and  Florence,  several  parleys  took  place  between 
the  Popes  and  the  Emperors,  but  they  resulted  in  noth- 
ing, because  tlie  Eastern  Church,  instead  of  drawing 
nearer  to  the  Church  of  Rome,  was  increasing  the  dis- 
tance between  them  in  proportion  as  the  Papacy  became 
more  proud  and  exacting. 

Still,  John  Palaeologus  succeeded,  by  using  all  his 
authority,  in  persuading  a  few  bishops  to  attend  the 
Council  of  Florence. 

There  were  two  distinct  periods  in  that  assembly — 
that  of  the  doctrinal  expositions,  and  that  of  the  conces- 
sions. 

By  the  doctrinal  exposition  it  was  made  apparent  that 
the  Eastern  Church  differed  from  the  Roman  upon  many 
fundamental  points,  and  that  she  maintained  her  doc- 
trine against  Papal  innovations,  because  that  doctrine 
had  been  bequeathed  to  her  by  the  Apostles  and  the 
ancient  Fathers. 

The  concessions  were  inconsistent  with  the  doctrinal 
exposition.  Why  ?  Because  the  Pope  and  the  Empe- 
ror of  the  East  used  all  the  resources  of  their  despotic 
power  to  overcome  the  resistance  of  the  Greeks  ;  be- 
cause the  Pope,  in  spite  of  his  formal  engagements,  left 
to  perish  with  hunger  those  Greeks  who  did  not  yield 
to  his  demands,  while  at  the  same  time  the  Emperor  of 
the  East  rendered  their  return  to  their  country  an  im- 
possibility ;  because  the  Papacy  was  able  to  gain  over 
some  ambitious  men,  whose  treachery  it  rewarded  with 
a  cardinal's  hat  and  other  honours.  But  the  Papacy  did 
not  succeed,  for  all  that,  in  obtaining  from  th«  Council  of 
Florence  any  distinct  recognition  of  its  pretended  sove- 
reignty. For  that  assembly,  even  while  it  proclaimed 
that  sovereignty  of  divhie  rights  inserted  in  its  decree 


THE   PAPACY.  873 

one  clause  which  annulled  it,  and  declared  it  a  sacri- 
legious usurpation. 

In  fact  that  sovereignty  can  only  be  an  usurpation  if 
Tve  seek  to  determine  its  character  by  a  reference  to  the 
(Ecumenical  councils. 

Thtis  was  iniquity  false  to  herself  in  that  famous  as- 
sembly, which  was  nothing  more  than  a  conspiracy 
against  sound  doctrine,  which,  under  the  name  of  a  union, 
promulgated  only  a  mendacious  compromise,  broken  be- 
fore it  was  concluded  ;  the  abettors  of  which  were  ana- 
thematized by  the  Eastern  Church ;  of  which  the  Church 
of  the  West,  represented  in  a  great  majority  by  the 
Council  of  Basle,  condemned  the  principal  author,  Pope 
Eugene,  as  a  heretic^  a  schismatic^  and  a  rebel  to  the 
Church. 

Since  the  sad  drama  of  Florence  the  Papacy  has  not 
attempted  to  subjugate  the  Eastern  Church.  It  has  pre- 
ferred to  endeavour  to  disorganize  her,  little  by  little,  in 
order  gradually  to  attain  to  her  enslavement.  Its  policy 
has  been  to  pay  an  outward  respect  to  the  Eastern  ritual 
and  doctrine ;  to  profit  by  every  circumstance,  particularly 
by  all  conflicts  between  nationalities,  to  insinuate  itself 
and  lend  its  authority  as  a  support  and  a  safeguard  to 
national  rights ;  to  be  contented,  at  first,  with  a  vague 
and  indeterminate  recognition  of  that  authority,  and 
then,  by  all  manner  of  hypocrisy  and  deceit,  to 
strengthen  that  authority,  in  order  to  turn  it  afterward 
against  the  doctrines  and  ritual  for  which  at  first  it 
feigned  respect. 

This  explains  the  contradictory  bulls  issued  by  the 
Popes  on  the  subject  of  the  united  of  all  churches.  The 
united  Greeks  of  the  East  and  of  Russia,  the  united 
Armenians,  the  united  Bulgarians,  the  ufiited  Maronites, 
etc.,  etc. 

If,  as  we  hope,  we  should  ever  publish  a  special  work 
on   the  points  of  difference  between  the  Eastern  and 


314  THE  PAPACY. 

Roman  Churches,  we  shall  exhibit  in  its  details,  and 
with  proper  references  to  authorities,  the  policy  of 
the  Papacy.  We  shall  detect  that  policy  at  work  in 
the  assemblies  of  Lyons  and  of  Florence;  in  all  the 
relations  between  the  Popes  and  the  Emperors  of  Con- 
stantinople, since  the  establishment  of  the  Latin  king- 
doms of  the  East ;  and  in  the  contradictory  bulls  that  have 
emanated  from  Rome  from  that  tinie  to  our  own. 

Our  object  in  the  present  work  has  been  only  to 
prove : 

First.  That  the  Papacy,  from  and  after  the  ninth 
century,  attempted  to  impose,  in  the  name  of  God, 
upon  the  universal  Church,  a  yoke  unknown  to  the 
first  eight  centuries. 

Secondly.  That  this  ambition  called  forth  a  legitimate 
opposition  on  the  part  of  the  Easteni  Church. 

Thirdly.  That  the  Papacy  was  the  first  cause  of  the 
division. 

Fourthly.  That  the  Papacy  strengthened  and  per- 
petuated this  division  by  its  innovations,  and  especially 
by  maintaining  as  a  dogma  the  unlawful  sovereignty  that 
it  had  assumed. 

Fifthly.  That  by  establishing  a  Papal  Church  in  the 
very  bosom  of  the  Catholic  Church  of  the  East,  it  made 
a  true  schism  of  that  division,  by  setting  up  one  altar 
against  another  altar,  and  an  illegitimate  episcopacy 
against  an  Apostolic  episcopacy. 

We  have  proved  all  tliese  points  by  imanswerable 
facts.  It  is  therefore  with  justice  that  we  turn  back 
upon  the  Papacy  itself  that  accusation  of  schism  of 
which  it  is  so  lavish  toward  those  who  refuse  to  recog- 
nize its  autocracy,  and  who  stand  up  in  the  name  of  God 
and  Catholic  tradition  against  its  usurpations  and  sacrile- 
gious enterprises. 

We  say  now  to  every  honest  man :  On  the  one  side  you 
have  heard  Scripture  interpreted  according  to  the  Catho- 


THE   PAPACY.  SI 5 

lie  tradition ;  you  have  heard  the  Oecumenical  Councils 
and  the  Fathers  of  the  Church  ;  you  have  heard  the  Bish- 
ops of  Rome  of  the  first  eight  centuries.  On  the  other  side 
you  have  heard  the  Popes  subsequent  to  the  eighth  cen- 
tury. Can  you  say  that  the  doctrines  of  the  one  and  of 
the  other  are  identical  ?  Are  you  not  compelled  to  ac- 
knowledge that  there  are  concerning  the  Papacy  two 
contradictory  doctrines:  the  divine  doctrine,  preserved 
during  eight  centuries  even  in  the  bosom  of  the  Roman 
Church — a  doctrine  which  condemns  every  idea  of  auto- 
cracy or  sovereignty  in  the  Church  of  Jesus  Christ ;  and 
the  Papal  doctrme,  which  makes  of  that  autocracy  an 
essential  and  fundamental  dogma  of  the  Church,  a  dogma 
without  which  the  Church  cannot  exist? 

Which  is  the  doctrine  that  every  Christian  must  pre- 
fer? That  of  God,  or  that  of  the  Pope  ?  That  of  the 
Church,  or  that  of  the  Court  of  Rome  ? 

You  must  choose  between  the  two.  Are  you  in  favour 
of  the  divine  doctrine,  preserved  by  the  Church  ?  Then 
you  are  a  Catholic  Christian.  Are  you  in  favour  of  the 
doctrine  of  the  Papacy?  Then  you  are  a  Papist,  but 
you  are  not  a  Catholic.  This  name  only  belongs  to 
those,  who,  in  their  faith,  follow  Catholic  tradition. 
That  tradition  contradicts  the  Papal  system ;  hence  you 
cannot  be  a  Catholic  and  accept  this  system.  It  is 
high  time  to  cease  playing  upon  words  and  to  speak 
distinctly ;  be  a  Papist  if  yoii  will,  but  do  not  then  call 
yourself  a  Catholic.  Would  you  be  a  Catholic  P  Be 
no  longer  a  Papist.  There  is  no  possible  compromise ; 
for  Catholic  and  Papist  are  words  which  mutually  deny 
each  other. 


INDEX. 


Acaclus,  his  contest  with  Rome,  198-197. 
Adrian  I.,  the  first  Pope,  258-262, 

The  False  Decretals,  published  during  the  reign  of,  258,  et  teq.,  note. 

Adrian  11.  claims  to  be  Autocrat  of  the  Church,  807,  815. 

Agapltus  at  Constantinople,  201. 

Alcuin  opposes  the  addition  Filioque,  328,  829. 

Ambrose  of  Milan,  his  doctrine  unfavourable  to  the  Papal  authority,  171-174. 

Appeals  to  Rome,  nature  of,  83,  84. 

Athanasius  of  Alexandria,  affair  of,  unfavourable  to  Papal  authority,  121-123. 

Augustine  of  Hippo,  his  doctrine  opposed  to  Papal  authority,  87,  174-181. 

Aurelian,  Emperor,  decision  of,  alleged  In  proof  of  Papal  authority,  87,  88. 

Authority,  Papal,  condemned  by  the  Word  of  God,  32-51. 

Avitus  of  Vlenne,  his  doctrine  opposed  to  Papal  authority,  80, 100. 


Baptism  of  heretics,  discussion  upon  the,  70. 

Basil  of  Csesarea,  his  doctrine  opposed  to  the  Papacy,  170, 171. 

of  Thessalonica,  letter  of,  to  the  Pope  upon  the  means  of  ending  the  division 

between  the  churches,  854. 
Bulgarians  converted  by  Photlus,  302. 

Ignatius  endeavours  to  preserve  his  jurisdiction  over  the,  814,  et  »eq. 

Why  they  applied  to  Rome,  802,  808. 

Answer  of  Pope  Nicholas  to  the,  c03,  et  seq. 


Centre  of  authority  In  the  Church,  85. 

Chief,  Christ  the,  of  the  Church,  82,  et  seq.    (See  Head.) 

Chrysostom,  affair  of  John,  unfavourable  to  the  Papacy,  184-141. 

Doctrine  of  John,  opposed  to  the  Papacy,  156-166. 

Clement  of  Rome,  letter  of,  58-66. 

Council  of  Antloch,  Canon  of,  explaining  a  text  of  St.  Irensens,  69. 

of  Constantinople  deposes  Ignatius  and  recognizes  Photlus,  286,  287. 

falsely  called  by  the  Romans  the  eighth  oecumenical,  808,  el  seq. 

acts  of,  not  authentic,  312,  note. 

opposed  to  the  so-called  eighth  oecumenical,  318,  et  seq. 

Acts  of,  authentic,  328,  note. 

^— ^  of  Jerusalem,  41. 


378  INDEX. 

Council  of  Nicea,  (first  oecumenical,)  contrary  to  Papal  authority,  92-96. 

of  Constantinople,  (second  oecumenical,)  contrary  to  Papal  authority,  96. 

of  Ephesus,  (third  oicumenical,)  contrary  to  Papal  authority,  101. 

of  Chalcedon,  (fourth  oecumenical,)  contrary  to  Pupal  authority,  96-101. 

— ^  oecumenical,  (Sfth,)  opposed  to  Pupal  authority,  203-200. 

(sixth,)  opposed  to  Papal  authority,  246-250. 

(seventh,)  opposed  to  Papal  authority,  257, 262-204. 

of  Sardica,  opposed  to  Papal  authority,  124-123. 

in  Trullo,  opposed  to  Papal  authority,  251,  252. 


Councils,  the  oecumenical,  were  neither  convoked  nor  presided  over,  nor  confirmed 

by  the  Bishops  of  Rome,  102,  121,  205,  245,  et  «£g.,262-2M. 
Crusades,  the,  ill-planned  by  the  Papacy,  341. 
Cyprian,  controversy  of,  upon  the  baptism  of  heretics,  70-72. 

doctrine  of,  contrary  to  Papal  authority,  67,  77-81,  91, 145,  et  »eq. 

Cyril  of  Alexandria,  doctrine  of,  contrary  to  the  Papacy,  169, 170. 
Church  of  Africa,  opposed  to  the  Papal  sovereignty,  17T. 


Decretals,  (see  False  Decretals.) 

Dispensation,  what  is  a,  according  to  the  Church  of  Constantinople  and  according 

to  the  court  of  Rome,  346. 
Division,  character  of  the,  between  the  Eastern  and  Western  Churches,  29,  et  teq. 
Donatlsts,  the  affair  of  the,  unfavourable  to  Papal  authority,  128-134. 
Dionysius  of  Alexandria,  his  doctrine  concerning  the  Roman  primacy,  71,  76. 
I  his  alleged  appeal  to  Rome,  85. 

E 

Easter,  discussion  concerning,  56-61. 

Empire,  (Latin,)  foundation  of,  at  Constantinople,  860. 

Fall  of,  370. 

Epiphanius,  his  doctrine  contrary  to  the  Papacy,  163, 154. 
Euseblus  of  Ciesarea,  testimony  of,  against  Papal  authority,  144. 

upon  the  first  oecumenical  councils,  103. 

upon  the  discussion  concerning  the  baptism  of  heretics,  70,  71. 

upon  the  discussion  concerning  Easter,  60,  61. 

upon  the  Letter  of  St.  Clement  of  Rome,  53-55. 

upon  the  affair  of  Dionysius  of  Alexandria,  84. 

upon  the  affair  of  Origen,  85. 

Eustathlus,  the  Patriarch,  his  overtures  to  the  court  of  Rome,  ."46. 
Excommunications,  nature  of  the,  of  the  Bishops  of  Rome  in  the  first  centuries,  77. 


False  Decretals,  the  basis  of  the  Papacy,  258,  (t  seq.,  note. 

Filioque,  addltlon_,of,  to  the  Creed,  826,  et  seq. 

Firmllian,  his  doctrine  concerning  the  Roman  primacy,  72-76. 

Florence,  Council  of,  and  the  false  union  proclaimed  there,  372,  373. 

Frankic  Bishops  of  the  eighth  century  opposed  to  the  Papal  sovereignty,  265,  266, 

271,  804. 
Fathers,  doctrine  of  the,  contrary  to  Papal  authority,  88,  note,  40,  note,  141-143, 134, 

186.    (See  their  names.) 


INDEX.  879 


G 

Oelaslus  of  Rome,  erroneous  doctrine  of,  198-200. 
Gerraanus,  letter  of  the  Patriarch,  to  Pope  Gregory  IX.,  866^ 

to  the  Cardinals,  307. 

assembles  the  Council  of  Nymphaeum,  3G9. 

Greeks,  (united,)  pplicy  of  Rome  in  respect  to  the,  8&4,  365,  C73. 

Gregory  IX.,  his  singular  accusations  against  the  Eastern  Church,  and  his  doctrine 

concerning  Papal  prerogatives,  367. 
Gregory  X.  anil  Michael  Palaeologus,  370,  371. 
Gregory  Nazianzen,  t«xt  of,  upon  the  Church  of  Constantinople,  69. 

doctrine  of,  contrary  to  the  Papacy,  166,  167. 

Gregory  of  Nyssa,  doctrine  of,  contrary  to  the  Papacy,  167-169. 

Gregory  of  Syracuse  and  Ignatius  of  Constantinople,  272. 

Gregory  the  Great,  Bishop  of  Rome,  opposed  to  Papal  authority,  206-286. 

H 

Hilary  of  Poitiers,  doctrine  of,  unfavourable  to  the  Papacy,  161,  ir<2. 
nippolytus  of  Ostia,  doctrine  of,  unfavourable  to  Papal  authority,  73. 
Honorius,  Bishop  of  Rome,  his  heresy,  238. 

condemned  after  his  death  by  the  sixtli  oecumenical  Council  and  by  the 

Bishop  of  Rome  himself,  248-250. 
Head,  or  caput,  meaning  of  the  word,  127. 
change  in  its  meaning,  and  its  official  origin,  236,  237. 


Iconoclasts,  matter  of  the,  a  proof  against  Papal  authority,  252. 

Ignatius  of  Constantinople  deposed,  272,  286,  287. 

his  appeal  to  Rome,  287,  298. 

doubtful  authenticity  of  his  appeal  papers,  298,  note. 

reinstated  by  the  Council  of  Constantinople,  called  by  Romanists  the  eighth 

oecumenical,  30S,  et  seq. 

his  silence  during  that  council,  312, 

threatened  by  Adrian  II.,  315. 

John  Vni.,  816. 

reconciled  to  PhotiuB,  822. 

Innocent  III.,  Letters  of  Pope,  to  the  Patriarchs  and  Eastern  Emperors,  and  his  doc- 
trine on  the  pretended  rights  of  the  Roman  see,  355-357,  860-362.  864. 
-  excuses  the  crimes  of  the  Crusaders  because  of  their  devotion  to  the  see  of 
Rome,  361,  362. 

endeavours  to  establish  firmly  the  Latin  Empire  of  Constantinople,  361. 

the  real  author  of  the  schism  between  the  two  Churches,  362. 

doctrine  of,  concerning  the  prerogatives  of  the  see  of  Constantinople,  363, 364 

Irenseus  admonishes  Pope  Victor,  69. 

Text  of,  touching'the  primacy  of  the  Roman  Church,  62-69. 


Jager,  (Abb6,)  draws  his  Information  regarding  Photlus  from  Stylien,  842,  noU. 

calling  himself  the  historian  of  Photius  is  guilty  of  an  absurdity  for  the  sake 

of  insulting  Photius,  901,  note. 


380  INDEX, 


Jager,  (AbW,)  Indirectly  acknowledges  the  changes  which  took  place  during  the  ninth 

century  in  the  authority  of  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  801. 
errours  of  this  pretended  historian,  802,  note,  805,  note,  306,  fwte,  808,  note, 

817,  note,  320,  note,  838,  nott,  348,  ?iO<«,  844,  note. 
John  Camaterus,  Patriarch,  Letter  of  to  Innocent  IIL,  355. 
John  the  Faster,  Bishop  of  Constantinople,  his  title  of  oecumenical,  206-286. 
John,  (St.,)  text  of,  relative  to  St.  Peter,  45. 
John  VIII.,  threatens  Ignatius  with  deposition,  816. 

claims  the  right  to  depose  the  Greek  Bishops  and  clergy  of  Bulgaria,  816. 

his  legates  recognize  Photius  as  legitimate  Patriarch,  817. 

Letters  of,  modified,  320,  et  seq. 

Letter  of,  against  the  addition  Filioque,  887. 

Jerome,  doctrine  of,  opposed  to  Papal  authority,  185-189. 

L 

Lambs  and  sheep,  46,  47. 

I.atin  Empire,  foundation  of,  at  Constantinople,  360. 

Fall  of,  370. 

Leo  VI.,  Emperor,  violates  church  discipline,  844 

is  condemned  by  the  Patriarch  of  Constantinople,  844,  845. 

absolved  by  the  Court  of  Rome,  844, 845. 

Leo  I.,  Bishop  of  Rome,  doctrine  of,  opposed  to  Papal  authority,  97-102, 164-156. 

Leo  111.,  opposed  to  the  addition  Filioque,  829. 

Leo  IX.,  Pope,  his  relations  with  Constantinople,  and  his  doctrine  concerning  her 

rights,  347-862. 
Luke,  (St.,)  Texts  of,  relating  to  St.  Peter,  42-44. 
I^ons,  Second  Council  of,  and  the  pretended  reiinion  of  the  Churches,  88!^ 

M 

Macarius,  Monselgneur,  his  treatise  upon  the  Procession  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  828-333, 

notes. 
Maimbourg,  (Father,)  a  Jesuit,  indirectly  admits  tht  change  that  took  place  during 

the  ninth  century  in  the  authority  of  the  Bishops  of  Rome,  282. 
Matthew,  (St.,)  Text  of,  ''Thou  art  Peter,"  etc.,  85-42. 
Michael  Cerularlus.    His  protest  against  the  Roman  Innovations,  847-860. 

excommunicated  by  the  legates  of  Leo  IX.,  851. 

general  character  of  his  protest,  862. 

Monothelltes,  matter  of  the,  a  proof  against  the  Papal  authority,  287-260. 
Morosinij  (Thomas,)  first  Latin  Patriarch  of  Constantinople,  862,  863. 

N 

Negotiations  between  Rome  and  Constantinople,  why  they  were  nselefs,  853,  864 
Nicholas,  Patriarch,  his  relations  with  the  court  of  Rome,  844-846. 
Nicholas  L,  Pope  of  Rome,  271. 

strengthens  the  new  institution  of  the  Papacy,  282. 

new  doctrine  contained  in  his  letters,  288,  et  »«q.,  895,  et  seq.,  300,  et  »eq., 

804,  et  seq. 
declares  against  the  council  that  deposed  Ignatins,  and  recognised  Photins, 

298. 
autocratic  pretensions  of,  298,  et  seq. 


INDEX.  381 


NIcliolas  L  deposes  Photlus,  298. 

Is  anathematized  by  the  Council  of  Constantinople,  305,  et  seq. 

his  reply  to  the  Bulgarians,  303. 

applies  to  the  Western  Bishops  to  reply  to  the  protest  of  Photias,  836. 

Novatlans,  matter  of  the,  unfavourable  to  Papal  authority,  88-90. 
Nymphseum,  Council  of,  discussions  between  the  Greeks  and  the  Latins  respecting 
the  addition  Filioque,  368-3T0. 


Object  of  this  work,  29,  et  seq. 

(Bcumenlcal,  title  of,  206-286. 

Optatus  of  Melevia,  his  doctrine  opposed  to  Papal  authority,  183,  188. 

Orlgen,  his  pretended  appeal  to  Rome,  84-85. 

his  doctrine  opposed  to  the  Papacy,  ITO. 


Palseologug,  f  Michael,)  his  policy  toward  Rome,  370,  871; 

(John,)  his  policy,  372. 

Papal  authority  contrary  to  God's  Word,  82-61. 
Papacy,  origin  of  the,  267. 

first  pret«nsionB  to  the,  condemned,  69,  75,  77,  78,  81. 

— —  opLolons  against  the  :  (see  Fathers.) 

Ambrose  of  Milan,  171-174. 

Augustine,  (St.,)  37,  174-181. 

Avitus  of  Vienne,  80. 

Basil  of  Caesarea,  170, 171. 

Chrysostom,  (St.  John,)  156-166. 

Council  of  Nlcea,  92-96. 

Constantinople,  96. 

Ephesus,  101. 

Chalcedon,  96-101. 

Fifth  (Ecumenical,  208-206. 

Sixth  "  246-250. 

Seventh       "  257,  262-264. 

Sardica,  124-128. 

in  TruUo,  251,  252. 

Cyprian,  (St.,)  67,  77-81,  91,  145,  et  seq. 

Cyril  of  Alexandria,  169,  170. 

Dlonysius  of  Alexandria,  71,  76. 

Epiphanius,  153,  l&l. 

Eusebius,  144. 

Firmillan,  72-76. 

Gregory  Nazlanzen,  166,  1C7. 

Gregory  of  Nyssa,  167-169. 

Gregory  the  Great,  206-236. 

Hilary  of  Poitiers,  151,  152. 

Hippolytus  of  Ostia,  78,  note. 

Jerome,  185-189. 

Optatus,  182, 183. 

Orlgen,  170. 


382  INDEX. 

Papacy,  opinions  against  the,  {iontinued.) 

Tarasius,  Bishop  of  Constantinople,  256,  267. 

TertulUan,  67,  78,  80-83,  145. 

Theodore  Studites,  266,  267. 
Paul  of  Samosata,  affair  of,  86,  87. 

Paul,  (St.,)  doctrine  of  concerning  tbe  Church,  82,  83,  41. 
Photius,  his  election  and  cliaracter,  273,  274,  et  seqi,  290. 

slandered  by  Stylien,  according  to  the  Emperor's  order,  843L 

Biographers  of,  273-276. 

first  letter  of,  to  Pope  Nicholas,  276,  et  seq. 

second  letter  of,  287. 

injustice  of  the  accusations  brought  against,  299,  not*. 

exiled  by  the  Emperor  Basil,  806. 

arbitrarily  condemned,  808,  et  seq^ 

reinstated  by  a  legitimate  council,  819. 

apology  of,  320,  it  seq. 

reconciled  with  Ignatius,  322. 

protest  of,  against  the  Roman  innovations,  830,  et  seq. 

again  arbitrarily  deposed  by  the  Pope,  339,  et  seq. 

exiled  a  second  time,  342. 

death  of,  843. 

Peter,  (St.,)  doctrine  of  concerning  the  Church,  84. 

Policy  of  the  Eastern  Emperors  toward  the  court  of  Rome,  D.'SS,  854,  866. 

Polycrates,  answer  of,  to  Victor,  58. 

Primacy  of  Peter  according  to  Scripture,  47-51. 

R 

Rock,  Jesus  Christ  the,  of  the  Church,  35,  et  seq. 

Rome  and  Constantinople,  antagonism  between,  190-203,  255,  324-325. 

Rome,  first  attempts  of  the  Bishops  of,  to  increase  their  authority,  196, 198,  300,  240, 
241,  255,  262,  268. 

. its  rupture  with  the  Empire  of  the  East,  255. 

radical  change  in  the  doctrine  of,  in  the  ninth  century,  concerning  the  author- 
ity of  its  bishop,  270. 

Council  of,  against  Photius,  806,  307. 

innovations  of,  325-327. 

variations  of,  relative  to  the  addition  Tilioque,  883. 

false  policy  of,  841. 

s 

?lieep  and  lambs,  46,  47. 

Summary  of  this  worlj,  and  consequences  which  flow  from  it,  374,  876. 
Sardica,  Council  of,  opposed  to  the  Papal  sovereignty,  124, 128. 
Stylien,  an  enemy  and  calumniator  of  Photius,  342,  844. 

T 

Tarasius,  Bishop  of  Constantinople,  opposed  to  Papal  authority,  256,  257. 
Tertullian,  doctrine  of,  opposed  to  Papal  authority,  67,  78,  80-88,  145. 
Theodore  Studites,  opposed  to  Papal  authority,  266,  2"7. 
Three  Chapters,  matter  of  the,  a  proof  against  Papal  authority,  201-205. 

u 

Union,  conditions  of,  according  to  the  envoys  of  Gregory  IX.  to  the  Council  of 
Nymphaeum,  369,  870. 


INDEX.  383 


Union,  the  political,  decreed  at  the  second  Council  of  Lyons,  871. 

. Becond,  decreed  at  Florence,  872. 

Urban  IV.,  (Pope,)  causes  a  Crusade  to  be  preached  against  the  Greeks,  8T0. 


Victor,  Bishop  of  Rome,  admonished  by  Polycrates  of  Ephesus,  68. 

by  Irenaeus  of  Lyons,  59,  60. 

Tigilius,  Bishop  of  Borne,  falls  into  errour  and  submita  to  the  sixth  oecumeijcal 
councU,  202-205. 

W 

West,  the  Popes  contribute  to  the  establishment  of  a  new  Boman  empire  In  the, 
866. 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 

/  Los  Angeles 

This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below. 


<(" 


196C 


f 

'.Y.tO    \^^  '^•^ 


»..M 


ID4JRL   J^  ^      WW^ 


R  E  C  E  1  V   . 

MAIN  LOAN  DEbK 


J(\14  i'      i«%^ 


[.j^CJjS?^Kl2i2U 


^,,  yA^  -^  "^ '  ^-^^^ 


r\i    ^. 


P.M. 


NOV  1 6 


VK 


D 


m^ 


im 


1981 


RtC'D :.: 


"^' 


P.M. 


^Mf§fli#» 


Form  L9-50m-7,'54 (5990)444 


■JRL 


UCMillIHl  \'.t,  HI  MUIjAl  imU'IU  l/.i:iLITY 


AA    000  634  135    8 


o 


.  i^^il'":^' -Ml! 


^ll 


■•i!>;T'K!t' 


